HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7a. Pavement Management Update from City Staff and Pavement Engineering, Inc. Item 7a
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5002
For Agenda of: 6/21/2022
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Hai Nguyen, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report and presentation from City Staff and Pavement Engineering Inc. on the
City’s Pavement Management Plan.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
City staff in collaboration with Pavement Engineering Incorporated will provide a
presentation to City Council highlighting the City’s asset overview, pavement
management and implementation criteria, the City’s Pavement Management Plan,
funding and upcoming projects, and close with local recognition and completed projects.
The following pages of this report cover the technical details of pavement management
as well as the City’s implementation strategy. Attachments A-F are attached to this report
and provide both technical and historical background. Attachment C provides the latest
Council adopted (2009) Pavement Management Plan. Attachment D is a current map of
pavement conditions in the City and Attachment E is a map of the planned pavement
maintenance plan by area from 2021-2027.
DISCUSSION
Background
1. Asset Overview
The City owns and maintains approximately 135 centerline miles of roadways, or
approximately 27.8 million square feet of roadway surfacing that is comprised of either
Asphalt Concrete or Portland concrete pavement. In addition to the roads, the City
maintains 4.5 miles of separate bike and pedestrian paths along with approximately 1,496
curb ramps throughout the City. The City owned roadways, bike paths, and curb ramps
are maintained by maintenance staff in the Public Works Department or by contractors
through the Capital Improvement Plan.
Roads are a crucial component of economic activity and development and provide means
of free flow and access to employment, goods, and services as well as form critical
corridors for overhead and underground public utilities necessary for a fully functioning
society.
Page 361 of 488
Item 7a
Well maintained roadways provide a safer surface for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians
to travel on and road maintenance is a key factor continuing enhancements to public
safety. Furthermore, roadways that are maintained in good condition provide for
sustained economic resilience and vital economic activities within the City by increasing
convenience, multi-modal access enhancements and overall safer travel.
2. Pavement Management
To ensure effective and efficient roadway maintenance, a Pavement Management
Program is a critical component to the logical and systematic maintenance of the City’s
roadways and paved surfaces. The City adopted the 1998 Pavement Management Plan
after extensive outreach.
The Pavement Management Program helps staff identify candidate streets for potential
repair and is used as a budgeting tool, an inventory tool, and historical pavement condition
record. As a budgeting tool, a Pavement Management Program uses treatment costs
that are based on recently bid projects, by the participating agency, so that budgets reflect
historical costs for the area. As an inventory tool, a Pavement Management Program
provides a quick and easy reference for pavement areas and use.
As a pavement condition record, a Pavement Management Program provides age, load-
related, non-load related and climate-related pavement condition and deterioration
information. The Pavement Management Program uses pavement deterioration curves
(Figure 1), based on nationwide research, which allow the program to predict a
pavement’s future condition. Along that curve are critical points where a maintenance
treatment must be applied or the pavement risks falling or deteriorating into a condition
where that treatment will no longer be effective and will require the next, more costly
treatment to maintain or rehabilitate it or reconstruct in its entirety. A basic guide to
pavement engineering is provided as Attachment A of the report.
Figure 1: Pavement Condition Index
Page 362 of 488
Item 7a
On April 14, 1998 Council adopted the 1998 Pavement Management Plan (Attachment
B). The Plan was based on a pavement management software program developed and
maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers called Micropaver. This was the City’s first
Pavement Management Plan that looked holistically at the City’s roadway assets and
divided the City into nine (9) distinct paving zones to ensure each area of the City was
receiving the necessary maintenance. The Plan recommended a policy to maintaining
pavement at Pavement Condition Index of 80.
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) provides a
basis for comparison and recommendation of
maintenance strategies. The PCI is a composite
numerical rating between 0 and 100 that describes
pavement condition based on the type, extent, and
severity of pavement distresses. A PCI of between
91 and 100 describes pavement in excellent
condition, whereas a PCI below 30 is pavement
that has failed or reached the end of its service life
(Figure 2).
On October 6, 2009 the City Council reviewed and
revised the City’s Pavement Management Plan.
This revision modified the goals and objectives of
the 1998 pavement management plan (Attachment
C) to give priorities to arterials roadways and clearly
defined the goals for all street type with the
priorities as follows:
Figure 2: Pavement Condition Index
Table 1 – 2009 Pavement Management Adopted Goals
With the Goals as shown in Table 1, Council determined that arterial roadways must be
kept in the best condition because they carry the bulk of the traffic, followed by collectors,
then the residential/local streets. The Citywide Pavement Condition Index as of May 25th,
2022, is at 72. This PCI places the City in the “good” category.
Page 363 of 488
Item 7a
Table 2 identifies the current conditions of pavements by street type and comparing it to
the goals that were established in the 2009 Pavement Management Plan. The upcoming
2022 Summer Paving work within Area 6, 7, and 9 is expected to move the City closer to
the goals that have been established.
Table 2 – Current Conditions and Adopted Goals
As shown in Table 2, the City is doing an excellent job maintaining our Local roadways
which account for 56% of the City’s roadways. In the coming years more emphasis must
be placed upon Arterial, Collector, and Downtown pavement maintenance to achieve
Council’s goals.
3. Technical Pavement Assets
City staff sub-divided the City into smaller, regionally grouped Zones (Figure 3).
Experience has shown that sub-dividing a City into smaller, “bite-size” pieces is an
excellent pavement management approach. Working with defined areas ensures that
attention is distributed throughout the City. Smaller areas can be managed and analyzed
individually. In addition, the sub-divided areas can be used to select work based on
geographical location, which saves mobilization costs during the construction phase, thus
saving additional funds for other streets.
Page 364 of 488
Item 7a
Figure 3: Pavement Management Zones
The City’s streets are shown by zone in Table 3. The arterials are broken out separately
into their own Zone, labeled “ARTS”, because they generally are eligible for federal and
state grants. The zones include all of the Collector and Residential streets contained
within the zone boundaries. Each zone was given a weighted PCI average. The table
lists the zones in numerical order. It should be noted that the Arterials and Zone 9
(Downtown Area) have lower average PCI’s indicating that they contain more streets in
the poor and failed conditions. The upcoming 2022 Summer Paving work in Zone 9
(Downtown Area) is expected to improve the pavement condition and raise the PCI value.
Page 365 of 488
Item 7a
Table 3 – Pavement Condition by Zones
The City’s Residential system is in better condition with a weighted PCI of 7 7 compared
to the overall weighted PCI for the entire city (72) as shown in the Table 4. Arterials have
a current PCI of 62 and staff expect this number to improve with the proposed 2023
Paving Project to repair segments of Monterey, California, Johnson, Santa Barbara,
Orcutt and Higuera. Additional information regarding the condition of each street can be
found in Attachment D.
Table 4 – Pavement Condition by Street Type
4. Implementation of the Pavement Management Plan
A key element of the Pavement Plan is a rotating and methodical approach to ensuring all
areas of the City receive regular preventative and/or corrective paving maintenance. The
City implements this rotation by performing maintenance in two neighborhood Pavement
Areas in one year, then focusing on arterial street work in the second year, thereby
alternating between neighborhood areas and arterials bi-annually (Attachment E).
Page 366 of 488
Item 7a
4.1 Streets Crew Maintenance
The City’s Streets Crew is responsible for performing the necessary preparation
work in neighborhood areas (crack sealing and patching failed areas, to address
structural deficiencies), before any of the preventative maintenance, or surface
treatment, work is performed. The street sealing program has been cost effective
and has worked great in conjunction with the Capital Maintenance projects being
delivered every two years in neighborhood areas. The streets crew paving budget
is approximately $1.2 million per year and has been sufficient to maintain local
roadways.
4.2 Policy Implementation with Pavement Projects
As part of the Pavement Management Plan, the 2022 Project will implement several
complete street modifications envisioned for Marsh and Higuera Streets in the City’s
Downtown Concept Plan and the Active Transportation Plan to improve downtown
safety and mobility for all road users. These strategies include design elements
intended to improve pedestrian crossing safety, increase separation between
bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic, and calm traffic and reduce speeds through the
downtown. Additionally, the 2022 Project will implement neighb orhood greenway
and traffic calming elements consistent with the Active Transportation Plan and
Safe Routes to School Plans within the Laguna Lake and northern Foothill
neighborhoods.
Annual paving of large areas provides an opportunity for the City to im plement
complete street improvements, primarily using striping and low cost materials, that
are consistent with various adopted plans or programs, including but not limited to,
the Active Transportation Plan, Downtown Concept Plan, Traffic Safety Reports,
Safe Routes to School plans, and the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
While each of these plans and programs had specific outreach efforts during their
time of development, staff conducts additional community engagement and
outreach opportunities prior to each paving project to ensure a community driven
final design that supports the safety, equity, and accessibility of all roadway users
within each pavement area.
Staff supports the current pavement management plan as it has proven to be
effective in maintaining pavements in good condition. Continued maintenance of
pavement is critical in preventing more costly repairs down the road. Streets that
are in good condition must be slurry sealed every eight years to provide a watertight
pavement system.
5. Pavement Treatment Costs
Every two years the City hires a team to survey road conditions. This helps staff monitor
conditions and plan for future projects. The PCI data was recently up dated in December
2021 and is being monitored by a program called StreetSaver . The StreetSaver system
has a decision tree matrix that assigns a treatment and cost to each street based on the
calculated PCI. Determining accurate costs based on the selected treatment is a crucial
component of the Pavement Management Plan.
Page 367 of 488
Item 7a
5.1 Costs by Treatment Type
The estimated total cost is a key element in defining the appropriate funding to
maintain roadways in good condition. Estimated total costs in Table 5 are
determined based on recent bid results received for Capital Improvements projects
within the City. The estimated total costs for each treatment type include 20% for
localized PCC repairs and ADA curb ramp improvements which are required by
federal law for treatments in categories II-V. Soft costs were also added to each
unit cost. Soft costs include a 10% contingency and 15% design, inspection and
administration fee. Treatment in the Light maintenance category do not require
ADA ramp improvements. See Attachment F for additional information on
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation treatments.
There is significant cost difference between Light Maintenance and other
treatments categories, therefore it is critical to maintain pavements in good
condition. Slurry sealing is an example of a light maintenance treatment that can
only be applied on good pavement . It should be noted that because the City’s
Street crew complete all crack sealing work and pavement repairs within
residential and collector streets prior to slurry sealing, the costs for light
maintenance work within residential and collector streets are substantially less as
compared to arterials. A summary of costs per roadway treatment classification
type is provided in Table 5. Furthermore, Table 6 provides a summary of
construction costs indicating significantly higher costs to maintain streets that
require heavy rehabilitation, emphasizing the effectiveness of ongoing and cyclical
routine maintenance intended to reduce long term costs.
Table 5 – Estimated Total Cost and Treatment Type
5.2 Recent Projects and Costs
The most recent bids received for the Roadway Sealing 2022 saw the cost of slurry
sealing doubled as compared to bids received in May 2020 for the previous sealing
project. Since asphalt emulsion is a key component of a slurry seal mixture, a large
share of this price increase can be attributed to recent significant increases in oil
prices. The California Department of Transportation Crude Oil Index have more
than doubled between 2020 and 2022. As shown in Table 6, a significant increase
in construction cost can be seen in 2022 for proposed street sealing work in Area
6, 7 and 9 (Downtown Area).
Page 368 of 488
Item 7a
Table 6 – Construction Cost and Treatment Type
5.3 FY21/23 Financial Plan CIP Budget and Funding Sources
To maintain the pavement system in good condition (PCI 70), it is estimated the
City would need to spend approximately $6.5M/Yr. The anticipated budget to
maintain the City’s pavement is approximately $3.3M/Yr. The budget is consisted
of approximately $1M/Yr in SB1 Funding and $2.3M/Yr in Local Revenue Measure
(LRM) Funding. The estimated total cost does not factor in the street crew’s paving
budget of $1.2M/yr to crack seal and patch fail areas within neighborhood areas.
Adequate funding will be important to implement the pavement management
strategies that have been developed and achieve the goals that have been set.
The cost effectiveness of the work the City’s Street Crew does and the
sophisticated software utilized have allowed the City to maintain pavements in
good condition with current budgets approved by Council. Table 7 lists the
estimated cost and projected funding to maintain City streets in good conditions
for the next four years. Additional funding identified in Table 7 will be evaluated
as part of future CIP planning efforts in coordination with City’s Major City Goals
which seek to balance out asset preservation and the replacement or development
of new assets.
Table 7 – Estimated Total Cost and Projected Funding
6. Local Recognition
In 2021 the City of San Luis Obispo received a “Best of SLO County” award from New
Times for Road Repair being the Best Use of Taxpayers’ Money. This was a great honor
and the City is proud of Public Works staff that make proje cts happen every year to
improve our City roads. The community continues to show support for pavement projects
as seen throughout construction of the 2021 Downtown Paving project.
Page 369 of 488
Item 7a
7. Sustainable Paving Strategies
7.1 Cool Pavement
Cool pavements refer to the decreased surface temperatures of roads, bike paths
and parking lots. The purpose of cool pavement is to reduce the amount of heat
absorbed by these surfaces, minimizing the heat island effect felt in developed
areas. These pavements can utilize a variety of different techniques to reduce
surface temperatures, such as lighter color aggregate, porous surfaces or lighter
pavement colors.
Of particular interest to the City are products that coat existing asphalt surfaces to
a color of higher albedo, typically grey. Streets would be crack sealed, slurry
sealed, then covered with this treatment to decrease the heat stored by the
pavement and help mitigate the heat island effect. The benefits and feasibility of
applying of this pavement coating system is still being investigated by staff.
7.2 Recycled asphalt concrete
Recycled asphalt concrete is a product consisting of reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP), virgin aggregates and asphalt. The low consumption of energy for
production and conservation of natural resources make the use of RAP in hot mix
asphalt (HMA) a sustainable choice.
The Asphalt Institute and The California Department of Transportation recommend
the use of RAP aggregate to substitute virgin aggregate in HMA in a quantity not
exceeding 15 percent of the aggregate blend by weight. Higher content of RAP is
not recommended as premature cracking may developed.
Current City Standards do not allow the use of RAP for paving operations of more
than 20 tons per day. Staff is evaluating the environmental benefits of RAP and
analyzing its effect on HMA strength and durability and will incorporate any RAP
materials into engineering standards or project specifications at a future date .
7.3 Full Depth Reclamation
The reconstruction of Madonna Road (between Los Osos Valley Road and
Oceanaire) was completed by using a technique called Full Depth Reclamation
(FDR). Full Depth Reclamation recycles existing pavement by grinding it up and
incorporating it into the existing base soil. This process in creases the base soil’s
strength and will correct the structural deficiency. A benefit of Full Depth
Reclamation is that it produces significant cost savings and environmental benefits
over the traditional method of removing and replacing the paving. These cost
savings are primarily due to reduced material transportation and trucking needs.
Less material is required to be both imported and exported from the project area.
Staff continues to look for opportunities to implement the use of FDR in areas
requiring heavy rehabilitation.
Page 370 of 488
Item 7a
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On April 14, 1998 City Council adopted the 1998 Pavement Management Plan.
On October 6, 2009 City Council passed a motion to approve a modification to the goals
of the pavement management plan.
Policy Context
Street pavements are the City’s largest asset and pavement management policies were
adopted to keep streets in good condition while at the same time promoting multi -modal
transportation through implementation of complete street elements and neighborhood
greenways.
Public Engagement
Staff has continued to keep the public informed about upcoming sealing and paving work.
JPW Communications has also been hired this year to help with public engagement by
providing updates about the upcoming summer sealing work through social media, news
articles and postcards.
CONCURRENCE
This study session has concurrence from the Administration Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended
action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
This study session itself does not have a fiscal impact. The Council controls, through the
Financial Plan process, the amount of funding that will be allocated to paving each year.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide to make any changes to the current program. The program as
envisioned and implemented has kept streets well maintained, reduced the number of
poor streets in the City and improved the condition of the arterial and collector portion of
the system. Staff could continue under this direction.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Pavement Engineering Basic Guide
B – Pavement Management Plan (1998)
C – Pavement Management Plan (2009)
D – Pavement Condition (2022)
E – Pavement Plan (2021–27)
F – Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Treatments
Page 371 of 488
Page 372 of 488
Appendix A Page | 1
PAVEMENT BASICS
When it comes to maintaining pavements, it’s important to understand the processes
that cause deterioration and the steps you can take to protect, preserve and extend the
service life of your City’s roads and parking areas. After all, it’s a huge capital expense.
This primer covers four important pavement basics: structure; deterioration; distresses;
and the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Understanding what pavement is and how to
preserve it potentially can save thousands of dollars over the typical lifespan of asphalt
concrete surfaces.
Pavement Structures and Pavement Design
Pavements are a structural support system that acts like a beam. But unlike beams in
buildings, which generally have static loads, a pavement structure flexes many times from
traffic loading. The top of the pavement structure is compressed from the load while the
lower portion expands or stretches. Each time a heavy vehicle passes over a pavement
structure, it consumes some of the pavement’s life and loses some of its ability to flex.
Over time and with repetitive loads, the
asphalt layer begins to break down at
the bottom where the pavement
expands to absorb the load.
Cars and light trucks have little impact
on the pavement structure. On the
other hand, heavy trucks have
significant impacts on the pavement
due to the high axle weights. The
impact of trucks is measured in
equivalent single 18,000-pound axle
loads (ESALs) that is then converted
into a Traffic Index (TI) used for design.
Page 373 of 488
Appendix A Page | 2
The design TI is the total number of ESALs that the pavement will support before it begins
to fail, regardless of the passage of time. For example, a design TI of 5 is equal to 7,160
ESALs. A design TI of 8 is equal to 372,000 ESALs. Normally, when designing new
pavement, ESALs over a 20-year period are used. For rehabilitation, such as overlays,
10 years is the general rule of thumb.
The other element of pavement design is “beam support,” which is provided by the
subgrade soils. The amount of support or the “support value” is designated by an R-value
test.
Using the design TI and R-value, a pavement designer chooses various materials to
construct the structural section. The most common pavement section is a thin layer of
asphalt concrete over aggregate base(s). Many options are available depending on
specific project requirements and conditions.
The design method used in California is based on 50 percent reliability. This means that
the average pavement life of all pavements constructed using the same design procedure
will last the design life. It also means that about half will not last that long and the other
half will last longer. To express this concept, a design life is often expressed in a span of
years, such as 17 to 23 years for a 20-year design life.
Pavement Deterioration
Each road and each
pavement section is
unique and, as such, is
somewhere on a
deterioration curve.
Pavement quality, the
impact of heavy wheel
loads, environmental
influences and time all
impact a pavement’s
lifespan or service life.
Along that curve are critical
points where a
maintenance treatment must be applied or the pavement risks falling or deteriorating into
a condition where that treatment will no longer be effective and will require the next, more
costly treatment to maintain or rehabilitate it. The more effective the timing and treatment,
the longer the pavement will last before it requires reconstruction.
Pavement deteriorates from two processes: fatigue and aging. Because these
processes occur simultaneously, the need for pavement rehabilitation will occur at
approximately the same time, assuming the pavement is designed and constructed
properly. This is called the “design life.” For most new pavements, the design life is 20
years.
Page 374 of 488
Appendix A Page | 3
Fatigue
Fatigue is a result of heavy wheel loads. Over time, as the pavement structure flexes or
bends from the weight of trucks and repetitive traffic, it loses some of its flexibility.
Eventually, the asphalt concrete layer begins to break on the lowest layer of the pavement
structure. This cracking progress upward until it reaches the surface and appears as
alligator cracking, named for its resemblance to the reptile’s hide. Alligator cracking is a
sure sign of structural failure that requires major rehabilitation.
Aging
Aging results from the environmental influences of sun and water, which oxidizes
pavement. Asphalt concrete is composed of aggregates mixed with a binder. Even good
quality aggregates experience some breakdown over time, and the asphalt concrete
binder ages as well. As a binder’s volatile components evaporate, it loses volume, and
as the volume decreases, the pavement becomes brittle and begins to crack. These
cracks are exacerbated by heavy wheel loads. Transverse cracking usually appears first,
but cracking also shows up at weak areas, such as paving joints. Eventually, these cracks
widen and increase over time until the pavement takes on a checkerboard appearance.
Any cracking, of course, is a conduit for water that accelerates deterioration and
dramatically shortens pavement life.
Page 375 of 488
Appendix A Page | 4
Pavement Distresses
Distresses are common to virtually the entire pavement as aging progresses. Some of
the most common are weathering or raveling; block cracking; longitudinal and
transverse cracking; distortions; patching and utility cuts, and rutting or
depressions.
Weathering
Weathering or raveling can be the first sign of
pavement deterioration. As a pavement’s binder
oxidizes, the fine aggregate components begin to
wash away, revealing coarser aggregates.
Eventually, the asphalt becomes rough and
uneven. It is a sign that either the asphalt binder
has hardened appreciably or that a poor quality
mixture is present. Weathering and raveling also
can be caused by certain types of traffic or by oil
dripping that softens the surface and dislodges the
aggregates.
Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking
Longitudinal cracks run parallel to the
pavement’s centerline or laydown direction.
They can be caused by a poorly constructed
paving lane joint, by decreased support or
thickness near the edge of the pavement, or by
environmental influences such as temperature
cycling or movement of the underlying layers.
Longitudinal cracks can also appear as a
reflective crack beneath the surface course,
including cracks in PCC (Portland cement
concrete) slabs.
Transverse cracks extend across the pavement
at approximately right angles to the centerline.
They can be caused by temperature cycling and
reflective cracking.
Page 376 of 488
Appendix A Page | 5
Block Cracking
Block cracking is a combination of connecting
longitudinal and transverse cracks that form a
distinctive checkerboard pattern over large areas
of pavement. The roughly rectangular segments
may range in size from approximately 1 foot by 1
foot to 10 feet by 10 feet. It is caused mainly by
asphalt concrete shrinkage and daily temperature
cycling and indicates that the asphalt has
hardened significantly. Block cracking is not
associated with wheel loads.
Alligator Cracking
Alligator cracking is a series of small
interconnecting cracks caused by the failure of
the asphalt concrete surface under repeated
traffic loading. Cracking begins at the bottom of
the asphalt surface (or stabilized base) where
tensile stress and strain are highest under wheel
loads. Initially, the cracks propagate to the
surface as a series of parallel longitudinal cracks
that eventually connect after repeated traffic
loading. The cracks form many-sided, sharp-
angled pieces that resemble the skin of an
alligator and generally are less than 2 feet on the
longest side.
Distortions
Distortions usually are caused by corrugations,
bumps, sags and shoving. They are localized, abrupt
upward or downward displacements in the pavement
surface, a series of closely spaced ridges and valleys
or localized longitudinal displacements of the
pavement surface. Distortions can be unsightly and
always affect ride quality.
Page 377 of 488
Appendix A Page | 6
Patching and Utility Cuts
A patch is an area of pavement that has been
replaced with new material to repair the existing
pavement. A patch is considered a defect no matter
how well it’s constructed, because a patched area
usually does not perform as well as the original
pavement section. Generally, some roughness and
unevenness is associated with this type of distress.
Rutting and Depressions
A rut is a surface depression in the wheel paths.
Pavement uplift may occur along the sides of the rut,
but in many instances, ruts are noticeable only after
a rainfall when the paths are filled with water. Rutting
stems from a permanent deformation in any of the
pavement layers or subgrades that is caused by
movement of the materials due to traffic loads.
Significant rutting can lead to major structural failure.
Depressions are localized areas where the
pavement structure is lower than the surrounding area but the transition is not abrupt
enough to be considered a distortion. They are often referred to as “bird baths.”
The Pavement Condition Index
One of the most effective tools for evaluating
pavement is the Pavement Condition Index or the
PCI, which was developed by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers during World War II and later
standardized by the American Society for Testing
and Materials as ASTM Standard D6433. When
combined with other weighted pavement
investigation information, a PCI provides an objective
and rational basis for determining maintenance and
repair needs and priorities.
The PCI is a composite numerical rating between 0
and 100 that describes pavement condition based on
the type, extent and severity of pavement distresses.
A PCI of between 91 and 100 describes pavement in
excellent condition, whereas a PCI below 30 is
pavement that has failed or reached the end of its service life. Most pavement falls
somewhere in between.
Page 378 of 488
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
APRIL 1998
Adopted by the City Council
of San Luis Obispo
on the 14th day of April, 1998
Resolution 8787 (1998 Series)
Prepared by:
Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
Joe McDermott, Streets Supervisor
Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo
Page 379 of 488
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Pavement Management Plan
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the 1998 Paveme nt Management Plan.
2. Amend the 1997-98 Budget by appropriating $200,000 from the General Fund for street
maintenance design services.
3. Direct staff to include implementation of all Plan components in the 1998-99 Budget, including an
additional $863,000 for an enhanced pavement maintenance effort and $285,500 for
implementation of remaining Plan components.
DISCUSSION
The 1995-97 Financial Management Plan included as a Council goal a program objective to revise the
existing 1987 pavement management plan to ensure effective and efficient pavement maintenance.
Staff has prepared a new pavement management plan which is attached and once adopted will replace
the 1987 Plan.
The new plan is based on a pavement management software program developed and maintained by the
Corps of Engineers called MicroPaver. This software is simpler to operate and provides more
consistent answers than the previous program used in the 1987 Plan. MicroPaver is used throughout
the United States and in many countries overseas.
Follo wing MicroPaver procedures, staff inspected and rated the City’s pavement. The results of the
data and software program analysis shows:
· That the overall citywide pavement condition (PCI) is rated a 70 out of a possible 100 points
· The condition of the pavement is deteriorating at about 1% ($600,000 value) a year
· The current potential value of the City’s street system is $60 million and its current worth is $43
million
· The current process of seal coating streets on a regular basis is effective in prolonging pavement
life - providing approximately eight years of value
· The design standards adopted by the Council in 1987 should be slightly modified by increasing the
standard for collector streets and for streets used as bus routes
Key Recommendations of the Pavement Management Plan
1. A key feature of the recommended Plan is that infrastructure maintenance activities should be
accomplished within eight designated “areas” within the City. Prior to street maintenance activities
(overlay, reconstruction, sealing), the area’s needs for utility, drainage and concrete repairs should
be addressed. While not discussed in the plan, the area’s needs for street signs, stripping, and trees
would be addressed following the seal program. All such work should be completed within a two
Page 380 of 488
Council Agenda Report - Pavement Management Plan
Page 2
year period. Once an “area” has been completed it should not be the subject to maintenance
activities for 6 years.
2. Due to the cost effectiveness of the street sealing program, the Plan recommends a funding
increase to ensure that the work is done well and on a regular eight year cycle to match the life
expectancy of the seal coat. Past programs have sealed an average of 7.2% per year with a goal of
8% per year. The actual need is 12% per year if no overlay or reconstruction program is available.
3. The Plan recommends that the Council should establish a policy of maintaining the pavement at
PCI=80, a level 10 points higher than the existing situation.
4. Design of engineered maintenance projects should always be based on engineering standards and
appropriate design. No street should receive an overlay treatment with the intent of restoring the
street to new condition unless the existing pavement is tested and the design is based on the results.
5. The Plan also recommends a program for surfacing the downtown streets on a regular schedule but
following a program that should have a low level of impact on the businesses.
6. To ensure that the program is achieved a new engineering position (Civil Engineer) will need to be
established and this work assigned as first priority to that position. The work flow diagram
(Appendix G of the Plan) indicates the complexity of the coordination implied by the plan and the
continuous nature of the work. Under current staffing and work load levels, pavement
management will not receive the level of effort it needs to be effective.
7. The Plan recommends that staff investigate alternative methods to design and maintain the
pavement. These should be tried and tested systems that are likely to provide benefits in excess of
their costs. The designs should also consider esthetics when projects are located in highly visible
areas such as the central business district.
Options to Implementation of this Pavement Management Plan
This Plan was created as a way to better understand the City’s street system condition and the effects
of the earlier 1987 Plan. This Plan recognized the beneficial aspects of the sealing program but found
that, in order to just stop deterioration at its current rate, additional funding would be needed.
Secondarily, this Plan recommends enhancements to existing maintenance programs and the creation of
a specific Downtown maintenance program. Finally, in order to affect the number of complaints and
general public perception of the City’s street system condition, significant additional funding is needed
for major maintenance i.e. overlay and reconstruction. What is the best way to implement such an
integrated and complex Plan?
1. Adopt the Plan and conclude that the existing City street system condition is acceptable.
a) Under this option, various program components of the Plan could be individually
funded or given preference for funding over other existing street maintenance
programs. The overall condition of the streets would continue to deteriorate and no
additional funding would be necessary.
2. Adopt the Plan and decide that sufficient resources would be provided to maintain the street
system condition at its current level.
a) The Plan recognizes that one of the two basic premises for this work effort was to stop
further deterioration of the overall condition of the City’s street system. Therefore, this
option should be considered the minimum level of effort needed to accomplish that
objective. All enhancements to existing programs and implemented new programs
(such as the Downtown program) should be considered integral to this option.
Page 381 of 488
Council Agenda Report - Pavement Management Plan
Page 3
Funding for all programs, except additional Major Maintenance ($675,000), would
require an increase over existing budgets of $473,500 and would provide a base level
sealing program of $500,000.
3. Adopt the Plan and decide that the overall condition of the City street system should be
improved.
a) This option fulfills the second basic premise and the true goal of a pavement
management plan i.e. “to improve the condition of the City’s streets”. By adopting the
Plan, the stated street condition standard of PCI = 80 becomes the objective. In this
option, all elements of Option 2 are implemented but significant resources are
dedicated to Major Maintenance - overlays and reconstruction. Once the decision has
been made to pursue this option, the only questions remaining are: how much
additional funding? and how soon?
b) How much additional funding? How soon?
i) The Plan shows that over a ten year period, with additional funding of
$675,000 per year the City could achieve the desired level of PCI = 80. The
Plan assumes that additional funding is not readily available, that street
maintenance is a high priority issue with the community and is supported by the
Council. Thus, the Plan is formulated around a strategy to achieve the desired
standard with increased funding at $675,000 for Major Maintenance
($1,500,000) over an extended time frame (ten years) while maintaining a
higher level of Global Maintenance sealing at $458,000.
ii) However, the Plan also shows that the PCI = 80 standard could be achieved
much sooner (one year) if a substantial amount of funding ($ 4,000,000) could
be provided. Due to extraordinary circumstances, the City’s current General
Fund does have about half this amount available, and if combined with the two
year funding previously set aside for major maintenance in the 1997-99 budget,
it is possible that the total needed funding could be available. Once completed,
the annual ongoing pavement management funding would level out at
$1,655,000 - an increase of $473,000.
iii) A midpoint program is likewise possible. Using approximately half of the
current General Fund surplus in combination with existing budgeted funds
would yield a Major Maintenance of $3,000,000 in the first year followed by
the ongoing ($1,500,000) program assumed by the Plan. This combination
would achieve the PCI objective of 80 much sooner than the ten year time
frame; perhaps in as little as five years.
Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the Plan. The issue is how best to implement the Plan and achieve the
various objectives within the Plan. Staff recommends implementing Option 3iii as discussed above.
This Option gives a significant boost to the City’s overall street condition without using all resources
available. All elements of the Plan would be implemented as follows:
· Funding currently budgeted for overlays and reconstruction (major maintenance), in Fiscal Years
97-98 and 98-99 (about $1.65 million) and the sealing program (global maintenance) of about
$270,000 would be combined with $863,000 of General Fund surplus to produce a combined
work program of about $2,783,000 to be implemented in the summer of 1998.
Page 382 of 488
Council Agenda Report - Pavement Management Plan
Page 4
· In order to accomplish this workload in that time frame, funding ($200,000) would be allo cated for
consultant services to prepare plans and specifications. This will require amending the 97-98
budget.
· Remaining elements of the Pavement Management Plan (i.e. Downtown Repair, Pothole response,
grind and pave-out, crack sealing, curb and gutter repair, testing, data entry and additional staff)
would become part of the 1998-99 budget and become effective July 1, 1998 for a total increase of
$285,500.
· An on-going increase for the street sealing program ($188,000) would become effective July 1999.
It should be recognized that, in each succeeding fiscal year and budget preparation, increased funding
for the Major Maintenance portion of the Pavement Management Plan will continue to compete with
other Council priorities. This Plan would not ever recommend funding levels below those needed to
stabilize pavement conditions.
What will the CAO Recommendation accomplish? The basis of every Pavement Management Plan
is the most cost beneficial use of the City’s resources. What this means in plain English is the Plan’s
software works very hard to preserve moderate to good streets and waits until those streets are
repaired and sealed before it allocates funding for reconstruction to the worst streets in the City.
Once a street has become very deteriorated, the high cost of repair remains a constant while the same
amount of funds can be used to keep a great many roads in good condition. Thus, the best use of the
funds is to spread it among the greatest number of roads - providing the best benefit. Accordingly, the
average citizen will see this summer a great many good looking roads being made better, and a few
roads in very bad condition receiving no attention at all. It will be important to publicize this project,
why some roads are ignored and the benefits of the Plan, in order offset the perception that could arise
that the wrong roads are being fixed.
Once the first year of the Plan is implemented with the greatly increased major maintenance effort, the
Plan does give some treatment to roads in poor condition. All roads, regardless of condition, within
the designated area receive a seal treatment unless newly rebuilt within the previous year. Thus roads
in poor condition do not get substantial improvements but do receive some treatment which allows
better bid prices and also provides some relief to those citizens living along those streets until such time
as major work can be accomplished.
Page 383 of 488
Council Agenda Report - Pavement Management Plan
Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Impact for the recommended program is as follows:
Current
Funding
Proposed
Funding
Increase
Global Maintenance (Excludes Staffing Costs)
Street Resealing 270,000 458,000 188,000
Downtown Street Repair 150,000 150,000
Pothole response 10,000 20,000 10,000
Grind and Pave-out 50,000 90,000 40,000
Crack Sealing 10,000 10,000
Curb and Gutter Repair 16,500 20,000 3,500
Total Global Maintenance 346,500 748,000 401,500
Major Maintenance
Designated “Area” 825,000 1,000,000 175,000
Arterials not in “Area” 500,000 500,000
Testing and evaluation 10,000 10,000
Total Major Maintenance 825,000 1,510,000 685,000
Program Management
Inspection and data entry 10,000 10,000
Staffing for Program Management 62,000 62,000
Total Program Management 10,000 72,000 62,000
TOTAL $ 1,181,500 $2,330,000 $1,148,500
CONCURRENCES
The Director of the Community Development Department has issued a Notice of Exemption under
CEQA. The concept on Area Maintenance has been discussed with the Utility Department and the
divisions of the Public Works Department. The concept has received support from all.
ALTERNATIVES
Reject Pavement Management Plan submittal and direct staff to make changes. Council should
provide direction as to areas requiring additional study and information.
Attachments
1998 Pavement Management Plan
Resolution
Page 384 of 488
Page 385 of 488
Page 386 of 488
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 4
Pavement Management - The Basics
History of Pavement Management - San Luis Obispo
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT-DESIGN ELEMENTS 6
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The Design Life of Pavement
How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Pavement Condition-The Public View
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE 9
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
How Staff Chose the New Software?
How did we install the new system?
How Does MicroPaver Work?
ANALYSIS-HOW DOES THE CITY’S SYSTEM STAND UP? 12
System Description
Street Condition Analysis
Effects of Good Design Standards
Effects of inadequate design standards, i.e. bus route impacts
The Street Sealing Program
Summary of Current Condition
Total Value of Deficiency
Funding levels for Pavement Management
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 20
Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Roadway Design Criteria
Implementation Plan
Program Components
Page 387 of 488
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS 28
Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Program Management
Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Funding Summary
FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 33
APPENDIX
A Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory
B 1997-8 Cal-Trans Partnership Paving Program
C Five Year City Wide Work Program - with $1,500,000 major maintenance and
$500,000 global maintenance programs
D Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
E Existing Pavement Deficiency
F Condition - Central Business District - $150,000 per year
G Annual Work Plan of integrating all Pavement Management Programs
H Budget to raise overall PCI
I Pavement Maintenance Areas Plan
J One Year Work Program - with $4,000,000 combined major maintenance and
global maintenance
Page 388 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July of 1995, the City Council adopted an objective to complete a new Pavement
Management Plan which would replace the previous Plan adopted in 1987. City staff has
diligently pursued completion of this objective and this Plan represents a culmination of
those efforts.
The street system of the City of San Luis Obispo is important: it is the City’s single most
valuable asset; it offers an immediate impression to visitors and residents about the quality
of life here in San Luis Obispo. Protecting and enhancing this asset is the fundamental
task of a good pavement management program, and a manifestation of good City
government.
The heart of a program is a computer software program which can analyze the conditions
of various street segments via special algorithms and then makes maintenance
recommendations according to the available budget. The City purchased MicroPaver, a
program originally written by the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain military bases.
This program is made available to the public via the American Public Works Department
and the University of Illinois. It is continually updated and maintained by the Corps and is
in use throughout the United States and worldwide.
Every street in the City was broken into multiple segments for data analysis; field
inspected and input into the program. Analysis shows a current value of the City’s street
system at $43 Million with a potential total value of $60 Million. With a deficiency of
nearly $17 Million to correct, the pavement management program question becomes: “Is it
possible to achieve total value, and if not, what is the best strategy to keep the system
from deteriorating further and if possible, to improve the system?”
It is the opinion of this Plan that, given the financial status of cities in California, it is not
possible to fund a program with an objective to achieve 100% of the potential street
system value. Therefore this Plan recommends a comprehensive program which will, over
a period of about ten years, raise the value of the system to approximately 80% of its
potential value. A street system with this value will have a much better appearance,
experience less complaints and provide a smoother ride for the public.
This Plan incorporates many of the elements of the 1987 Plan but takes a more pro-active
role in maintaining the street system - particularly in the Downtown. New techniques for
pavement management have emerged since 1987 and many are still in the research stage.
This Plan encourages the selective use of appropriate new technologies that will make
pavement management even more cost effective and efficient.
Is this Pavement Management Plan perfect? The answer is no. Just as the 1987 Plan was
based on an a just emerging pavement management software program, this Plan assumes
that local road conditions (and therefore maintenance strategies) follow a certain
degradation curve. The actual curve can only be determined with successive road segment
data collected over time and input to software. Design recommendations are likewise
based upon vehicle and truck counts currently available and projected for the future.
Page 389 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 2
Finally, the life extending capabilities of various design and maintenance strategies are
based on nationwide averages.
Due to all these variables, this Plan recommends that a full street system analysis be
prepared as a part of each two year budget preparation. This will serve a two fold
purpose: a) the data input allows the software model to better predict the condition and
therefore needs of the street system; and b) it keeps the Council aware of the importance
of the street system and better helps the Council decide the degree of funding needed.
Total program recommended funding levels are nearly twice those of the current program,
increasing fr om $1.2 million annually today for sealing and overlay, to $2.3 million to fully
achieve the pavement management objectives recommended in this Plan. This Plan also
includes a recommendation for a new staff position to administer the program, maintain
the software and prepare plans and specifications for the needed maintenance projects. In
effect this creates an “advocate for pavement” on staff much like those that exist now for
sewer, water, parks, etc.
Why does this Plan recommend higher costs than the previous one? A number of issues
all contribute the answer.
· The previous system was designed to fully seal only 80% of the entire roadway system
versus the planned 95% level recommended in this Plan.
· The previous plan had no proactive approach to 5% of the system representing the
Downtown.
· The length of the City’s roadway system has increased by 16% since 1987 (about
1.5% per year) and while adjustments were provided for increasing material costs, no
adjustments were made for roadway system increases.
· Estimates of the dollar amount required to “catch up” on major maintenance were
probably low in the 1987 Plan.
· Roads that were only 10 years old then are 20 years old today and thus further
deteriorated and the maintenance strategies are far different, more effective and more
expensive.
· Funding was not consistently provided for the major maintenance identified in the
1987 Plan.
Totaling all factors together creates a geometric funding deficiency rather than a simple
arithmetic function. This Plan will help avoid these problems by providing a clearer, more
quantifiable measure of pavement condition and return the streets to a more favorable
condition found 10 years ago.
Analysis of the current maintenance program and funding levels shows the existing street
system in a gradual decline. A program that just maintains the status quo requires an
annual increase in budget of about $200,000.
The new “Area” program. A major component of this Plan is described as the “area”
program. Citizens often complain that government agencies waste taxpayer dollars by
paving a street one year and then ripping it up the following year with a sewer or water
Page 390 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 3
line project. This Plan proposes that all underground work necessary within the
designated “area” would be completed in one year. The following year would be devoted
to paving projects. And after that, no projects would occur in that area for another six
years unless an emergency arises.
Nationwide, pavement traditionally has received a fairly low priority for funding until such
time as the public really starts to complain. A good pavement management plan prevents
numerous complaints while keeping the public aware that the system is actively being
managed. By adopting and implementing this, the 1998 Pavement Management Plan, the
City of San Luis Obispo can expect a significant improvement to its street system. It
provides a pro-active approach to long range planning, decreasing neighborhood
disruption and maintaining the commercial viability of the Downtown. It will serve the
needs of the community well into the next century.
Page 391 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 4
INTRODUCTION
Pavement Management - The Basics
Pavement management is the process and methodology of controlling the condition of the
traveled roadway surface; preserving its appearance, usefulness, safety and longevity.
Good pavement management accomplishes these goals in an effective and efficient
manner. A comprehensive pavement management program includes three major elements:
a) on-going or Global Maintenance; b) rehabilitation or Major Maintenance; and c)
inspection, monitoring, data input or Program Administration. Without one of the three
elements pavement management can survive, but at the cost of effectiveness and
efficiency.
Global maintenance is intended: to extend the life of roadways which exist in a good
condition, and to maintain all other streets in a safe and operational condition until such
time as major maintenance can take place. This form of maintenance includes street
sweeping, crack sealing, and surface sealing. The City has conducted, for a number of
years, a successful surface sealing program including chip seals, cape seals and micro-
surfacing.
Major maintenance involves an engineered design to rehabilitate a given roadway segment
and, in essence, return it to the condition of a brand new surface. Roadway overlays and
reconstruction are examples of this type of maintenance.
Program administration requires a significant effort because the street system is most often
a city’s most valuable asset. The software to evaluate and make recommendations is
complicated; the data necessary is extensive; and knowledge of pavement design and
experience in the field is necessary to make effective and efficient decisions.
History of Pavement Management in the City
Prior to 1987, the Public Works Department managed the City’s pavement by conducting
an annual field review. The review was conducted by the Department Head and the Street
Superintendent. The review was conducted over a two to four week period by driving
each of the city’s streets, and recording the needs of the pavement on a map. The result
was an annual work program, constrained by the budget, to correct observed deficiencies
by improving the pavement by overlay or reconstruction and to extend existing pavement
life by application of a chip seal.
In 1987, the City adopted a Pavement Management Plan that used a proprietary software
program to rate street conditions and recommend maintenance. This system was installed
and managed by staff at the Corporation Yard. The program identified a large city-wide
deficiency in street conditions. As a result, the City Council approved additional funding
for a major maintenance program which was projected to cure the deficiency within a ten
year period. Additionally, a global maintenance program was approved with a goal to
extend the life expectancy of the existing city street system.
In 1993, the City experienced a budget shortfall and addressed the shortage of funds by a
combination of staffing reductions and cutting back on programs. At the time, three
Page 392 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 5
different positions at the Corporation Yard were responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the Pavement Maintenance program. Two of the positions were
eliminated, and the person in the third position retired and his position was not filled. In
addition funds for major maintenance were reduced. Thus due to significant problems at
the time, two of the key areas for a pavement management program - major maintenance
and program administration - were negatively affected and streets scheduled for major
maintenance were delayed.
In 1995, the condition of Marsh Street was determined to be extraordinarily deteriorating.
With the opening of significant improvements in the downtown, the Council directed the
expenditure of over a year’s worth of major maintenance funding be used to provide
significant improvements to Marsh Street, including beautification and drainage
improvements. Other streets scheduled for this type of maintenance were further delayed.
During the City Council budget deliberations in the spring of 1995, staff proposed and the
Council concurred with the need for a new pavement management system. However, the
Council rejected the request to hire a consultant to prepare the pavement management
plan and directed that the plan be prepared using only staff resources. The plan was to be
prepared within the existing workload and a budget of $15,000 was allocated. Because of
multiple other projects and Council goals, staff preparation of this comprehensive report
took longer than originally anticipated. This report is the conclusion of much staff time
and effort.
Page 393 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 6
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT - DESIGN ELEMENTS
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The surfaced or paved area within the city is both a large and valuable asset.
Approximately 1/8th of the surface area within the city limits is currently covered with
street pavement, not including the area paved and used for parkways, sidewalks, parking
lots or private streets and driveways. The replacement value of just this public street
pavement is approximately $60 million dollars. Managing the City’s largest asset in an
effective and efficient manner is incumbent upon staff, and expected by the City’s citizens.
Due to the significant asset value, an effective management program must contain key
policies adopted by the local elected officials. It is important that all policy makers have a
basic understanding of pavement design and its aging process before giving direction to
implement a pavement management plan.
The Design Life of Pavement
The design life of pavement is a policy area that directly affects initial construction cost,
and secondarily affects on-going maintenance costs. In theory, the design life is time from
initial construction until it is time to remove and reconstruct the roadway section again.
The standard pavement design life in the United States is 20 years. However, different
design periods are possible as a standard design life in Europe is 50 years. The European
view is more costly initially but requires sig nificantly less maintenance over the life of the
pavement.
Extended life expectancy can be obtained by either designing pavement with different
parameters or by using different materials. In an effort to learn from the Europeans, the
United States sent experts to study their designs with the goal of returning with new
knowledge on how to build better and longer lasting roads. The result of that research
effort is a new pavement design called Superpave. Many states have adopted it while
others, including California, are still analyzing the design parameters and doing testing.
Another example of roads with long design lives can be found here in San Luis Obispo in
the existing network of concrete streets. While they may have ride or appearance
problems, they are still structurally sound and viable streets.
Because the pavement has been designed for a 20 year life, and because there would never
be enough funds to totally replace the entire street network every 20 years, pavement
management programs have been developed with an emphasis on design life extension.
Thus a key policy and accompanying component of a pavement management plan is a
strategy on how best to achieve extension of pavement life.
How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Most pavements placed today are asphalt. Asphalt is a combination of small rock, sand
and asphaltic emulsions which act as a binder for the other material. All asphalt roads are
considered a flexible design; meaning that the road will flex under loading but rebound to
its original shape after the load has passed. It is the asphalt binder that provides the
flexibility. However, asphalt is subject to oxidation by sun light and as such loses its
ability to bind the structural parts of the pavement and yet remain flexible. If not repaired
Page 394 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 7
or maintained, the pavement becomes rigid and is no longer able to sustain the loads. The
pavement cracks and breaks and then must be removed and replaced.
The asphaltic emulsions also provide a watertight seal at the surface of the pavement.
This keeps water from penetrating through the pavement to the soil which supports it.
Dry soil has the strength to support a flexible pavement while wet soil does not; leading
again to structural failure. Thus it is important that a good surface seal be maintained to
keep water intrusion to a minimum.
All pavements age in a non-linear way. If all things are equal, the condition of a new
pavement remains in an excellent condition for several years while oxidation slowly takes
place. Then, gradually, the condition begins to deteriorate as either the soil looses
strength or the pavement becomes rigid. At some point, the rate of deterioration plunges
steeply. This leads to a street in poor condition and rapidly increasing maintenance costs.
Finally, the condition of the road stabilizes in a very poor condition.
Pavements in varying states of repair and ride were evaluated and a standard methodology
of measurement, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was established to provide a
basis for comparison and recommendation of maintenance strategies. A high PCI is a road
in good to excellent condition, while a low PCI is a road in poor condition.
The figure below shows a typical degradation curve for an asphalt roadway over a period
of time. The goal of a good pavement management program is to maintain an average
PCI of the street system as high as possible.
Typical Street Degradation Curve
Obviously, a key question that must be asked is: “At what point is it no longer economical
to try to maintain or extend the pavement life?” The point where the pavement condition
begins to rapidly deteriorate is called the critical point or pci and the most common
critical PCI is 50. Pavement management programs recommend maintenance strategies
that extend pavement life for streets above the critical point. For those below the critical
point, strategies are recommended which keep the streets in a safe condition until such
time as the road can be reconstructed. Figure 1 shows the critical point in relation to the
degradation curve and time.
Page 395 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 8
Good pavement management means the cost to maintain the pavement in a good or
excellent condition is relatively low, as long as the work is done before the condition
begins rapid deterioration. Once the pavement has begun to deteriorate rapidly the cost to
restore the pavement to excellent condition increases rapidly to the point where it may not
make economic sense to spend money doing routine maintenance. Most experts in
pavement management recommend that priority be placed on spending money to keep
streets maintained above the critical point.
If the condition of the pavement is above the critical point, global maintenance should be
performed frequently enough to keep it there. As pavements fall further towards the
critical point, forms of major maintenance such as overlays and spot repairs are
appropriate forms of maintenance to extend pavement life. Pavements that fall slightly
below the critical point can sometimes be restored with a combination of overlay and
reconstruction but when pavement falls further, complete reconstruction is necessary.
Reconstruction is the most costly solution to pavement problems.
The decision to allow a deteriorated pavement to remain must be made considering
potential risks. It may be rough, but it cannot have structural problems such that vehicles
using it are placed in an unsafe condition. Factors that must be considered include the
number of vehicles per day, the type of vehicles (emergency, trucks, motorcycles and
bikes, etc.). These factors tend to favor programs which place priority on maintenance,
including reconstruction, on arterial and collector roads. Finally, all pavement
management programs need an element that assures that the needs of pedestrians crossing
the street are met, regardless of the condition of the street.
Pavement Condition - The Public View
Some streets in the community will need to be maintained for more than just
transportation purposes. They serve to provide identity. An example of this was the
decision to spend significant resources on the rehabilitation of Marsh Street in the
downtown. Visitors entering the community receive their first impressions as they observe
the condition of the streets. Pavement condition is also a statement of the governing
body’s performance. A well maintained, attractive street system is an indicator of good
government.
The public only intuitively knows the PCI of the City’s street system. They know and
appreciate smooth streets and a fast response to a service request (such as a pothole
repair). Citizens take pride in well maintained streets and recognize that streets that
provide access to the community for our residents and visitors and streets in the principal
business areas have different needs. These streets should be maintained to a higher
standard and may have differing design standards such as decorative stamped concrete,
pavers, colored materials etc. Policies which recognize these differing standards of
expectations should be part of a good pavement management program.
Page 396 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 9
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
Pavement management programs can consist of basic maintenance operations directed
from a very simple file card system to a highly complex combination of maintenance
strategies tied to computerized databases. The heart of most modern programs is a
software program that contains the streets database and, on the basis of input inspection
data, makes recommendations of various maintenance strategies.
The primary purpose of the software is to provide the pavement manager a reliable basis
for making economical decisions, resulting in the best pavement the budget will allow.
Typically the database will provide information about the kind, quantity and quality of the
pavement. The system of paved areas is broken into various sized segments that are
unique in character. The pavement type, history, and condition is recorded. The
information is used to identify needed maintenance. If money is not a limiting factor, the
project strategy is not difficult. Since budgets are a reality, the manager must use the most
economical alternative maintenance strategy in order to extend the pavement life and
maintain the surface at an acceptable condition.
The software is designed to identify a work plan that will optimize expenditures. It does
this by providing a consistent method of pavement evaluation and comparing the results
with time. Any performed maintenance effort on the pavement is input. Periodically
pavements are re-inspected to document the rate at which it ages. Some systems include a
method of forecasting the rate of expected deterioration based upon the history of similar
pavements in the system. The system tells the engineer whether the overall system is
getting better, poorer or staying the same. A well managed system will tell the pavements’
owner, the City, whether more or less funding should be allocated for maintenance and
will tell the engineer the effectiveness of the maintenance systems being used.
One feature that ma ny newer software programs have is GIS interaction. This allows the
manager to see the data in a geographical relationship. It helps in developing a plan of
operation in order to perform a more logical maintenance program.
The implementation of a sophisticated software program is a large project. Every street in
the system must be investigated to identify the history of the current surface. Following
this, the street must be inspected using a systematic approach to make the results
meaningful. Lastly, a good record must be made of the history and inspection. With all of
the data gathered, the final and relatively important activity is an evaluation of the report
and the development of a work plan and related budget. This process involves a series of
trial runs to find what alternative work plans will result in the most improvement to the
system within the budget allowed. Initially, the first evaluations are made for the purpose
of identifying the amount of the deficiency and are the beginning point for evaluation and
eventual recommendation.
Page 397 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 10
How Staff Chose the New Software
Prior to beginning this project, staff met and discussed goals for a management system.
Desirable features were discussed and agreed upon. The system had to be simple, result in
consistent inspection results, be supported by a credible organization and relatively easy to
use. It needed to work on the City’s chosen computer hardware both now and in the
future, and provide flexible reports indicating pavement conditions. It had to produce
budget-planning documents that allowed the use of materials we now use and ones we
may like to consider for use in the future. Annual updates must be easily made and Cal
Poly students should be easily trained to inspect and input the data. Last of all the
program costs and costs to inspect and install the data needed to fit within the budget
established by the Council. Staff reviewed comparison reports prepared for the Federal
Highway Administrations LTAP program.
Staff attended programs put on by the Institute of Transportation Studies at Berkeley and
examined samples of many of the better programs. Based on all information gathered,
staff made the decision to purchase MicroPaver. This program has been under continual
development by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers since the 1970’s and is supported by
the University of Illinois and the American Public Works Association. The program was
originally developed to assist the military in the maintenance of its bases. It will continue
to be updated and supported, as the government has a strong desire to maintain the
program since it has proven to be an effective tool for maintenance of military bases and
commercial airports. Nations around the world have also adopted it for use in their
countries. The program is designed to run on desktop computers under Windows NT or
95. It is also designed to link directly with ARCVIEW, the City’s chosen GIS software.
In addition, it has a very simple inspection system that is easy to use and results in
consistent evaluations. Also modules are currently being designed to assist maintenance
programming in other areas including storm drains, sidewalks and buildings.
How did we install the new system?
Once MicroPaver was ordered, two staff members spent a week at the University of
Illinois learning how to operate it. Upon returning to San Luis Obispo, staff began the
process of installing the software and the database. The first project was to identify the
current pavement inventory and its condition. To do this, the entire inventory used in the
prior system was reviewed and checked against historical plans. Next, the pavement areas
were mapped utilizing AutoCad and the City’s base map system. This provided an
accurate plotting of the location and area of each segment of pavement. The segment
areas were further divided on the AutoCad maps to create sample areas for inspection.
Crews of student interns were trained in defect identification and measurement following
procedures established by the Corps of Engineers. The interns inspected the sample areas
identified on the drawings. It is important that the sample area be well defined, because
the real power of the program results when the same sample area is reviewed over time
and the rate of aging and deterioration of the pavement is established.
Page 398 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 11
After the pavements were inspected, the resulting data was entered into the computer and
a pavement condition index, PCI, was established for each segment of roadway. The PCI
is a very important index in pavement management: the higher the PCI, the better the
pavement’s condition and less funding is necessary for rehabilitation; the lower the PCI,
the worse the ride, the condition, the public approval etc., and significantly more funding
is necessary for rehabilitation.
How Does MicroPaver Work?
MicroPaver bases its recommendations upon the data input and the Pavement Condition
Index or PCI. The PCI is a number ranging from 0-100. A perfect street would have a
rating of 100. A PCI is calculated from inspection information and is assigned to each
street segment. The street segments are assigned to a family of streets having similar
characteristics. i.e. they were built of similar material, concrete or asphalt. The PCI for
each street segment was then plotted against pavement age on a chart for each family.
The program uses the data to define the degradation curve for each family of pavement.
This curve projects the condition of each pavement in future years. It can also be used to
estimate the current condition of similar pavement that was not inspected.
Based upon the PCI and the available budget, MicroPaver assigns work on a priority basis
as follows:
1. Global Maintenance - Stop Gap Work. This work, which would be performed by City
Crews, is assigned to those streets below the critical point in order to make the streets
safe for vehicular traffic and includes repair of potholes, and grind and pave
operations.
2. Global Maintenance - Preventative Maintenance. Streets, above the critical point, are
next identified which will benefit from a maintenance program to extend street life.
This is generally done via a street sealing program and is usually performed under
contract.
3. Major Maintenance - Structural Repair. Resources are next allocated for roads above
the critical point but with areas of structural failure. Repairs performed extend
roadway life and make the road eligible for the more cost beneficial form of global
maintenance.
4. Major Maintenance - Overlays and Reconstruction. All remaining resources are
directed to those streets in the worst condition. Once this work has taken place the
PCI is essentially 100 and the street is eligible for ongoing preventative maintenance.
MicroPaver places emphasis on preserving and extending pavement life. It only
recommends work that is cost -effective - even for streets in the worst condition. It works
on the premise that once a street deteriorates to a low point the cost of rehabilitation does
not increase with time.
Page 399 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 12
ANALYSIS OF THE CITY’S STREET SYSTEM
System Description
The City has 187 KM (116 miles) of streets. As previously mentioned, the paved area of
City surface is over 1/8th of the City’s total incorporated area. The streets have been built
over a period of many years, and the materials used for pavement is a variety of concrete
and/or asphalt over the native ground or imported base material. Streets are commonly
classified by the surface material or wearing surface. The existing street surfaces are
classified as shown in the following chart.
Street Surface Material
Original Asphalt Pavement AC
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement AAC
Concrete Pavement PCC
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt APC
Oiled or gravel street1 GR
Streets are also classified by use. While the City’s Circulation Element has a number of
classifications, for the purposes of pavement management, streets will be classified as
Central Business District, Arterial, Collector, or Local.
The following table describes the existing street system by both street classification and
pavement type.
Street Rank
Percent of total
Pavement Area
Central Business District 5%
Arterial 23%
Collector 14%
Local 58%
Pavement Type 1
Asphalt Pavement 45%
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement 42%
Concrete Pavement 1%
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt 9%
1 Un -paved streets represent 3% of all streets
Page 400 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 13
Total replacement value of the pavement alone is estimated to be $60 million. The value of
the street system curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage systems, street trees, street lights,
traffic signs and controls should be added to this figure to obtain a true overall street
system valuation.
Street Condition Analysis
The existing city street
pavement system was
inspected and the data
input into MicroPaver.
A total of 187 centerline
kilometers of pavement
were inspected. The
current condition can be
seen on the bar chart.
Over 70% of the area of
pavement inspected was
good or better. Unfortunately some of the pavement was of lesser quality.
This graph shows how the pavement
has been aging over the past 10
years and where it might be in five
years. Using current data and
projecting back to 1987,
MicroPaver indicates that a PCI of
80 was most likely the City average
at that time. The graph shows that
the City has not sufficiently funded
its road surface maintenance
program to stop the system from
further deterioration. A decision will
be necessary to either provide more
funding or adopt a policy
acknowledging a lesser street system if the City continues to follow the current
maintenance program.
Condition Distribution Graph (% Area): 1997
Condition
Percent
Area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good
Pavement Condition Curve
Beginning 1987 and Projected to 2001
Years
Avg
Condition
0
20
40
60
80
100
Jul 1987 Jul 1989 Jul 1991 Jul 1993 Jul 1995 Jul 1997 Jul 1999 Jul 2001
January 1998
Page 401 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 14
This bar chart shows how the
pavement will appear in 10
years, if no further
maintenance is done. As seen,
the only 50%of the area
remains in the good and very
good categories.
The charts below show the current average PCI for various pavement types in San Luis
Obispo and the percentage of total street area of each material.
Pavement Type Ave. PCI Ave. Age % Area
Asphalt (AC) 80 22 45
Overlaid Asphalt(AAC) 67 18 42
Overlaid Concrete(APC) 47 22 9
Concrete(PCC) 33 63 1
Street Classification Ave. PCI Ave. Age % Area
All Streets -- Average 70 20 100
Downtown 48 23 5
Arterial 59 17 23
Collector 63 19 14
Local 77 22 58
The concrete streets in the city are old. They are either in the downtown area and its
environs or are former state highways. Many were overlaid with asphalt around 1970.
These streets have an average PCI rating of 47. The overlaid streets are now only in
slightly better condition than those streets which were not overlaid. Downtown streets
Condition Distribution Graph (% Area): 2007
20020071/1/2007
Condition
Percent
Area
0
10
20
30
40
% Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good
Page 402 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 15
rate just below the critical PCI level, primarily due to the fact that Marsh Street was
recently overlaid and has a much higher rating which helps to raise the overall average.
The local streets are in the best average condition. One reason for this high rating is that
these streets are among the newest. Recently constructed streets, those built since the
70’s, were built to an adopted city standard based on engineering design standards. Older
streets were also built to a standard but not as high a standard as that used today.
One of the key indicators of the adequacy of the pavement maintenance budget is an
estimate of what it would cost to address all of the deficiencies found during the
inspection. The current deficiency at this time is $16.6 million or about 28% of its total
value. If the entire deficiency was addressed in the first year of a maintenance program (a
big undertaking!), the ongoing expenditure needed for global maintenance to maintain the
street system in excellent condit ion would be $500,000 per year.
Effects of Good Design Standards
As discussed above, newer
streets designed and built to
engineered standards have
proven to last longer. This
graph shows the relationship of
pavement age to pavement
condition for asphalt pavement
constructed during the past 20
plus years. This pavement was
designed to current standards
and much of it was maintained
with the various seal programs.
The obvious thing to note is that
the pavement average condition is good. The exceptions, which fall well below the critical
point, are generally paveouts along major streets that also serve as bus routes.
Effects of inadequate design standards i.e. bus route impacts
Bus routes impact pavement life. The information on bus routes is illuminating, and until
this study was conducted, the effects of buses were only known subjectively. When looked
at separately, the streets that are used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 45. Those
that are not used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 61.
Asphalt Pavement Constructed in
Last 20 Years
0
50
100
0 5 10 15 20
YearsPCI
Page 403 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 16
The two charts below show the difference in the aging of streets on and off the bus routes.
From looking at these charts, it is evident that bus traffic does result in pavement wearing
out faster.
The Street Sealing Program
Observation of the charts to the right shows the
condition of various pavements sealed over the
last eight years and those that have not. The
sealing program was established as a part of the
1987 pavement management plan and its
success is evident by comparing the two charts.
The original goal was to seal 80% of the entire
street surface area within a ten year period (or
8%/year), choosing very large areas within the
City to yearly receive the seal coat maintenance.
The plan assumed that 2% of the streets would
be overlaid or reconstructed each year and therefore not require sealing.
For the first five years, the City performed a “chip seal” project on selected streets. In the
last three years, the City has employed the use of
a “cape seal” for one and “Micro-Surface seals”
for the latest two. Several construction problems,
risk management issues and public frustration
issues were eliminated with the Micro Surface
seal.
While the current program (FY 97-99) is funded
to seal 8% of the street per year, the average
actually accomplished over the last nine years has
been 7.2% of the street area. The program has
fallen short of its ten year goal for two reasons: a) the total street system has grown in the
Pavement Aging on Bus Route
Streets
Years
PCI
020406080100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pavement Aging on Arterial and
Collector Streets that are not Bus
Routes
Years
PCI
020406080100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Streets Not Sealed
in last 8 years. PCI=62
Condition
Percent
Area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good
Condition of Streets Sealed in
last 8 years. Ave PCI=67
Condition
Percent
Area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
% Very Poor % Fair % Very Good
Page 404 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 17
last nine years and this growth has not been factored into the program; and b) the original
goal should have been 12% per year because the effective “life” of a seal coat is eight
years.
Summary of Current Condition
Total Value of Deficiency. In summary, the
analysis from MicroPaver shows that the
pavement system is still in good condition but
that it is and has been deteriorating.
Continuing on the present course will lead to
the need for expensive repairs in the future.
The 1987 plan showed the need for $2.5
million ($3.2 million in 1997 dollars) in
rehabilitation. The current plan shows the
need for $16.6 million. However, these two
numbers cannot be directly compared because
the 1987 plan was intended to return the pavement condition to 1980-81 levels; an
unknown PCI level. (As mentioned earlier, MicroPaver projected a 1987 PCI level of 80
but there are too many variables to likewise project a 1980 PCI level.) The number
generated by the current plan, in essence, returns all streets to as near a PCI of 100 as is
practical, and then assumes that only ongoing global maintenance would be necessary.
The accompanying chart describes the deficiency level against desired PCI level. The
higher the desired level of PCI, the greater the deficiency and the greater funding
necessary to achieve that desire. For example, an expenditure of $4 million dollars today
would raise the overall condition of the pavement to 80.
Funding levels for Pavement Management
As previously discussed, past funding levels have not been sufficient to stop a slow overall
degradation of the City’s street system. Various funding levels were analyzed for their
effect on street system quality.
The following three charts model the relationship between overall pavement value and
age. Value is used rather than PCI because, like a junk car, the value may go to zero but
the roadway (or car) is still barely usable. The charts assume that the pavement will
depreciate to little or no value over 20 years following a straight line. The initial value
was determined by MicroPaver to be approximately $60 million. At the point where the
model shows a depreciation of $16 million (our current condition) an application of a
global maintenance and a capital improvement effort is applied (i.e. the beginning of a new
pavement management program). Applying an increased global maintenance effort does
not improve the value of the system but does stop system depreciation. Capital
improvement (i.e. major maintenance) is required to add value to the overall system. All
funding levels analyzed are based on a program of street sealing (global maintenance) and
overlay/reconstruction (major maintenance).
Budget
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
97 86 84 80 72 71 70
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)Budget
Page 405 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 18
Figure No. 1 shows that a funding level of $1.3 Million (an increase of $200,000 over
current program) is necessary to stop further degradation. This, in essence, would
maintain the current level of citizen complaints and public perception of the City’s road
system condition. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and $800,000 overlay/reconstruction.
Figure No. 2 shows that a program with $1.5 Million (an increase of about $400,000) will
very slowly rehabilitate the system with a major improvement in overall conditions far into
the future. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and $1,000,000 overlay/reconstruction.
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
13579111315171921Years
Straight Line depreciation at %5 Value without Capital Expenditures
Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 1
$1.3 Million Program
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
13579111315171921Years
Straight Line depreciation at %5 Value without Capital Expenditures
Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 2
$1.5 Million Program
Page 406 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 19
Figure No. 3, with a funding level of $2 Million (an increase of about $900,000 over
current program), shows a fairly significant improvement in overall quality of the City’s
system within a relatively short period of ten years and is the basis for recommendations
made in the following section. However, even with this level of funding, the overall value
of the street system will only rise to 80% of its total potential value (approximately
equivalent to a PCI of 80). It is unrealistic, given current funding levels for cities in the
State of California, to propose pavement management programs which will achieve full
potential value. A good pavement management program, recognizes realities and sets a
policy for attaining a reasonable street system that will reduce the number of citizen
complaints and increase the perception that the City has and maintains a good and smooth
street system. Funding level: $458,000 sealing and $1,500,000 overlay/reconstruction.
Figure 3
$2.0 Million Program
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Years
Straight Line depreciation at %5
Value without Capital Expenditures
Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Page 407 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 20
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
This Plan recommends an enlarged street sealing program, significant additional funding
major maintenance, and a new program focusing on maintenance in the downtown in
addition to enhancing other existing maintenance programs such as crack sealing and
concrete repair. In order to assure successful implementation, a new staff position to
provide the necessary engineering and project management is also recommended.
What happens in ten years if we pursue the recommended program and expend $2.3
million per year on pavement maintenance? Given all constraints remain constant, the
City’s overall PCI will rise to 80 from 70. However, constraints do not always remain
constant and as such this Plan requires a City Council biannual reevaluation. If that
evaluation finds that the pavement condition is meeting expectations and predicts a lessor
level of needed expenditures the budget could be reduced. Considering all of the variables
involved with pavement aging and emerging pavement maintenance technologies there is
no assurance that the recommended program levels of funding will remain constant and is
in fact the best reason to perform the periodic review recommended in this Plan.
Following are recommended Policies, and where appropriate, associated Programs to
allow implementation.
Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Policy 1.1 Achieve and maintain a PCI of 80 for all City streets.
Currently all streets have an average PCI of 70. The public, staff and the Council
feel this level to be unacceptable. Staff reviewed PCI levels of 80, 90 and 100.
Staff chose a PCI level of 80 due to budget considerations, and the fact that newer
asphalt streets have an average of 80. Examples of streets with a PCI=80 include:
Tank Farm Road from Poinsettia to the Railroad, Grand Avenue from McCollum
to CalPoly, and Chorro Street from Palm to Monterey. This level of service will
be better than the current, but there will still be streets in poor condition. There
will be fewer complaints from citizens and likewise fewer streets below the critical
point than there are today.
Policy 1.2 Review and re-evaluate PCI level every ten years.
It takes time to make significant changes in pavement condition. The changes
proposed in this document are intended to gradually raise the overall PCI level
over a period of 8 - 10 years. It is important that this program be reviewed by the
policy body for its success, and to determine if it is time to set a higher standard.
The higher PCI could be achieved much quicker; for example with a one year
expenditure of $4 million the overall PCI could be raised by 10 points to an overall
average of 80. The type of expenditure: major maintenance versus global
maintenance can be seen in Appendix H. With this level of capital funding an
ongoing maintenance level of approximately $1.3 million is required to maintain
that PCI level.
Page 408 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 21
Roadway Design Criteria
Policy 2.1 Set roadway design life expectancy at 20 years for all streets, other than
new local streets in subdivisions which should be designed for 50 years.
The design of major underground infrastructure (sewer, water and storm drain)
assumes a 50 year life. Therefore, it is likely that a pavement designed for 50 years
could provide good service life. The predominant cause of early structural failure
is trench cuts for utilities. In older streets, with older infrastructure systems, many
street cuts are necessary in order to provide reliable utility service. In these areas,
maintaining a design life of 20 years is appropriate. Requiring subdivisions to
design streets for a 50 year life would have an effect on the cost of housing. While
the cost of the pavement would increase about 25%, the overall cost of the
subdivision infrastructure improvements would increase by about 4%. The exact
impact on housing costs probably would not be noticed.
Policy 2.2 Set the Traffic Index (TI) at 8.5 for arterial and collector streets; at 7 for
bus routes on local streets; 6.5 for local streets with a life expectancy of 50 years; and 5.5
for all remaining local streets.
The design of pavement is based on a TI. This number is based on the expected
number of heavy vehicles to travel the street in the design life. Due to the damage
caused by buses, staff recommends a TI=8.5 for areas of arterials and collectors
and TI=7 for areas of local streets used by buses. Pavement inspections, as well as
the graphs of bus impacts, have documented that the current design standard is not
adequate to withstand the extra loads created by bus traffic. Without bus traffic, a
review of what this number should be indicates that a TI=8 should be used for
arterial and collector streets. However, since bus routes are always subject to
change, and arterials and collectors are the primary streets used by buses, it is fair
to assume that eventually the street may be used by the bus system and a little
extra design effort will pay off in the future.
Local streets are also affected by bus traffic, but the need to design every street for
that need is unrealistic. Therefore a TI=5.5 is recommended for local streets. All
referenced values are based on a life of 20 years. For local streets designed for a
50 year life, the TI will be increased to TI=6.5. This will yield a 150% increase in
useful life with only a construction cost increase of 25%.
Policy 2.2 Soil Strength (R ) will be assumed to be 5 unless documented otherwise.
Soil strength is measured in the lab and a number ( the R value) that represents the
soil strength is established. In San Luis Obispo, where poor soils are common, this
number can be as low as 5 ( the lowest possible). Staff recommends that all
pavement be designed based on an assumed value of 5. The roadway designer may
have soil samples tested for actual value and the measured R value may then be
used in the calculation of the pavement design.
Page 409 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 22
Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of new technologies and materials in pavement design
Most likely pavement materials will continue to be asphalt. However, there are
many new designs of asphalt mixes being developed with the goal to reduce cost
and increase life. “Superpave” and other similar alternatives should be examined.
In addition the cost and benefit of concrete pavement should be monitored,
particularly where longer life is desired. Various methods of preparing the subsoil
and ways of placing the pavement are being explored, and the staff should be
encouraged to investigate and recommend new systems where they are cost
effective.
Implementation Plan
Policy 3.1 Provide a comprehensive street maintenance program that is least
disruptive to business, residents and industry
Program 3.1.1 Divide the City (except the Downtown) into eight
designated “areas”; each of which will receive all City maintenance efforts no more
than two years within an eight year period.
The city will be divided into eight areas (see Appendix I), following the pattern of
the past eight years of surface sealing. Maintenance of all facilities in the area will
be coordinated and carried out within a one or two year time period. This Plan
will involve utility agencies and the City’s Utilities and Public Works Departments.
The goal of this program will be to identify and provide complete maintenance of
the area, budget allowing. The process will be programmed in a two-year budget,
with planning in the first 6 months and implementation of each of the parts over
the following 18 months. Utility work and major maintenance of streets would
occur during year one, and global street maintenance (the sealing program) would
occur during year two. During any one-year budget, two different areas will be in
process so that the entire city can be covered in an eight year time period.
Program 3.1.2 Create a specific action plan for the Downtown area to
assure quality streets and minimal disruption of activities.
The downtown, a ninth specific maintenance area, is a unique area that should
have a regular program of maintenance. A series of small projects may have much
less impact than a few large ones. Projects should be designed and planned to
minimize the time they take. Projects should be scheduled to work in the
downtown during hours which least impact the majority of the businesses and
residents. The timing and planning of all projects needs to be closely coordinated
with the BIA.
The design of projects in the downtown should be open to new concepts and
materials. Pavers, stamped asphalt and/or concrete, and other materials should be
investigated for use in the Downtown. Pavement maintenance should be
coordinated with major projects proposed by utilities and others. The Utilit ies
Department Infrastructure Plan should be considered as projects are planned.
Page 410 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 23
In order to be least disruptive these projects would be performed by City staff.
For example one morning the City street paving crew may grind the existing
asphalt off the street in one block.. The following morning the same crew would
return, prepare and seal any cracks and lay a thin layer of asphalt. The next
morning the crew would adjust manholes and valve box covers and by the end of
the week re-stripe the street. The projects would be designed to be accomplished
in the morning hours, prior to noon. Visitors and adjacent businesses would for the
most part of the day not be impacted. It would be visible but would have minimal
impact on parking and access.
This proposed program is much more pro-active than the “downtown” program
associated with the current pavement management program. The current program
urges restraint in all projects to avoid disrupting business in the Downtown.
Unfortunately, this appears to have been taken too literally: except for the Marsh
Street Reconstruction Project, little has been done in the Downtown as the current
street conditions attest. This program assumes a close relationship with the BIA
for well coordinated, quick, “in and out” projects that will keep the downtown
streets smooth and attractive.
Policy 3.2 Give priority to a) arterial streets; b) collector streets; and finally, c) local
streets in areas scheduled for program implementation.
Program 3.2.1 Identify the streets by classification and schedule
rehabilitation work appropriately.
The City’s MicroPaver program will identify streets of higher usage and therefore
those that will benefit the greatest from rehabilitation efforts.
Program Components
Policy 4.1 Create a comprehensive Global Maintenance component which emphasizes
extending pavement life and maintaining a safe riding surface.
Program 4.1.1 Provide every street within the eight major areas a seal
treatment once every eight years
The street sealing program provid es the best cost/benefit for increasing pavement
life, and the new micro-surfacing treatment has eliminated past problems with
citizen acceptance. The beneficial life of a good sealing process is eight years,
after which it has little affect on pavement quality. In order to receive maximum
beneficial use of the seal coat, it must be reapplied at the end of its useful life or
every eight years.
This program continues the successful sealing program started in the 1987
pavement management program, which also divided the city into eight
geographical divisions, with a plan to seal the streets in one of these areas each
year. There were two reasons for this policy: one, the City had a goal of sealing
every street every eight years to extend pavement life; and two, it was much more
efficient for both the contractor and City staff to work in one area thus keeping
Page 411 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 24
cost down. The concept has proven to be successful. The contract costs have been
reasonable and the work has been relatively easy to manage.
Although the concept was good, actual implementation (i.e. only returning once
every eight years) has been problematic. The amount of funding was insufficient
to provide the once every eight year cycle; twenty six additional kilometers (16
miles) of streets to be sealed were discovered when all data was returned from
MicroPaver; and staff turnover made program coordination and implementation
difficult. Cross training and consistent use of the software package should
eliminate these problems.
Program 4.1.2 Implement an effective pothole response program
This is considered a “stop gap” or preventive maintenance procedure. Pothole
repair prevents water intrusion into the supporting soil, and assures that the
roadway surface remains in as safe a condition as possible until such time as the
road can receive major maintenance. Potholes are the result of unique failures of
the pavement resulting in a hole. The life of the pavement is only marginally
extended and the condition of the pavement is only slightly improved. The City
staff will repair “potholes” in normal working situations and on normal working
days within 24 hours of notice.
Program 4.1.3 Implement a Grind and Paveout repair program
This is a process of removing irregularities in the pavement’s profile using a
grinding machine. After the surface is smoothed, a thin coat of asphalt is applied
to hide the grind marks, make the surface uniform and provide some small
extension of the pavement’s life. This is a life extending process that results in a
good finished pavement appearance. Recent applications have been to address
bicycle and pedestrian safety issues, although larger projects are equally possible as
evidenced by the recent Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road paving project
performed by City staff.
This process is also appropriate for concrete streets that have been overlaid with
asphalt. The crew grinds off the old asphalt and lays a new layer on the concrete.
This process should be repeated as soon as it becomes apparent that the old
asphalt has begun to de-laminate from the concrete. Seal coating the asphalt
surface may delay this but it will normally be necessary every 20 years. The City
of San Francisco has been following this kind of program and found it successful.
Many pavements display a failure called “alligator pavement” prior to forming
potholes. The name reflects the appearance that is similar to the design of an
alligator’s hide. Removing the alligatored pavement, prior to complete failure via
grinding or the more traditional dig -out me thods, and replacing the failed asphalt
with new asphalt material is a proactive procedure that will extend the life of the
pavement.
Page 412 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 25
Program 4.1.4 Implement a crack sealing program
Older pavements become brittle and crack and, if not addressed, allow water
through the pavement to the supporting soil. Cracks should be sealed in the fall
prior to rain and prior to any seal program. Cracks to be sealed are those too large
to be sealed by the global sealing program. Ideally, the City should have a
program that inspects and seals cracks every three years. The inspection program
used by MicroPaver is an appropriate tool to use to identify streets needing to be
crack sealed. If streets are inspected every three years, the data can be used to
prepare a work plan to first address those streets that will be sealed in the area of
the seal coat program and then those streets that are outside of that area.
Program 4.1.5 Provide a comprehensive curb and gutter repair and
replacement program.
This continues and expands the current successful program. The edge of City
street pavements are protected by a containment system of concrete curbs and
gutters. Where drainage is concentrated, and must cross the surface of the street,
cross gutters are installed. These features are important to the life of the
pavement. They carry water away from the pavement and protect the edges from
raveling. They are maintained by City crews and by adjacent property owners.
Well maintained concrete curbs, gutters, and cross gutters will extend the life of
the pavement.
Policy 4.2 Create a comprehensive Major Maintenance component to rehabilitate
poor quality streets to an excellent condition.
Program 4.2.1 Implement engineered design solutions to all streets possible
within the selected area for rehabilitation.
This work will be engineered and inspected by staff or consultants, depending on
overall workload, and will be contracted to the private sector for construction.
Engineered design means a design based upon data collected about the existing
structural section, such that an individual solution is created which most cost
effectively applies to what funding is available. By focusing all work in one
specific area, the City should be able to receive somewhat better contract prices.
This program allocates approximately 2/3rd of funding for major maintenance for
use in the scheduled maintenance area. Major maintenance is much more
expensive than Global Maintenance, because the roadway is in much worse
condition. Upon completion of this effort, the pavement should return to a PCI
level of 100.
Program 4.2.2 Implement engineered design solutions to major arterials,
which are not part of the scheduled area for improvements, if deemed necessary.
This program allocates approximately 1/3rd of funding for major maintenance to be
used to rehabilitate the major arterial streets in the city as long as needed. These
streets are just too important to the well being of the city to be forced to await
Page 413 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 26
treatment for eight years. All design, inspection and contracting features of
program 4.2.1 apply to this program also.
Policy 4.3 Implement a pavement management administration component to
guarantee the preservation an enhancement of the quality and life of the City’s roadway
system.
Program 4.3.1 Inspect the street system annually and input data to
MicroPaver.
Annually the staff will conduct inspections of pavement and provide the Council
with a summary report of the condition. The inspections will be conducted
following MicroPaver procedures, and the condition report will be made available
through the program. Streets inspected during the annual inspection will be those
streets within the next year’s area for maintenance. Also included will be any
downtown, arterial, or collector street that had not been inspected in the last three
year or had received a PCI of less than 60 at its last inspection. Streets overlaid,
reconstructed or newly constructed in the last 6 years would not be inspected until
they were 6 years old.
The Pavement Management Plan shall be linked to the City’s GIS. The data file
shall be updated annually, so that others wishing to use it as a part of a GIS
application may do so.
The condition of the pavement shall be reported every two years at the time of the
preparation of the two year budget.
Program 4.3.2 Continually update MicroPaver with data from City staff
global maintenance efforts.
Monthly the staff should update the database to reflect the maintenance work
conducted.
Program 4.3.3 Inspect and update signs and delineation in each scheduled
work area.
The same crews that are responsible for maintaining the pavement must also
maintain the signs and delineation. These features shall be reviewed annually and
appropriately maintained. During the area maintenance program, all signs that do
not meet standards for reflectivity or standard design shall be removed and
replaced. Delineation shall be restored on all streets surfaced. Material for
striping, such as thermo -plastic, shall meet longevity standards. Delineatio n in the
downtown may need to meet other needs. With the increased vehicle and
pedestrian activity, and more frequent sealing program, painted stripes may be
more economical. Staff should investigate which is the appropriate material.
Program 4.3.4 Prepare and enforce regulations on trench cuts in City
streets to preserve pavement design life.
Trenches in any street have the effect of severely reducing its life expectancy.
Trenches are made in streets to allow the installation of utilities. Water, sewer,
gas, and many wire utilities use underground systems within the street. These
Page 414 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 27
utilities are normally installed at the time of original development of subdivisions
and street extensions.
Unfortunately additional utility structures must be installed and existing ones must
be repaired or replaced. When this happens, the pavement of the street is cut and
repaired after the installation. Repairs are done carefully but due to the nature of
the material used, the pavement is never as competent as was the original
structure. Eventually the fill in the trench settles, causing the pavement to drop
and cracks open up along the edge of the trench. The street becomes rough and
the surface is opened to water penetration, which aggravates the problem by
reducing the strength of the supporting soil.
Studies done by other agencies indicate that trenches reduce the effective life of
the pavement. At least two agencies in California, Sacramento and Los Angeles,
have adopted policies and regulations implementing an aggressive program
consisting of fees, standards and inspections, to protect their streets from damage
caused by utility cuts. This program will research these programs and their
success, if any, and formulate new regulations for enforcement in San Luis Obispo
as appropriate.
Existing regulations should remain in place which limit the ability to trench City
streets which have been overlaid/reconstructed within the last five years or which
have been sealed within the last three years. These regulations are waived in the
case of an emergency but act to force utilities to do long range planning or design
their infrastructure in a differing way (such as a bore and jack project as opposed
to open trench). All trench projects which occur before the year designated for
major maintenance should be required to seal one half the street width (or 4m
width whichever is less) for the length of the trenching project. This will add
expense to the utility performing the trench operation but will relieve the taxpayer
from the extra expense of underwriting the cost to repair a failed roadway later on.
Page 415 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 28
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS
Due to various factors, the funding originally set aside for the 1987 pavement management
program is insufficient to meet today’s needs. Each of the policies and their respective
programs are tailored to improve the quality of the City’s street system and none are
inexpensive. The recommendations made herein were made with the full comprehension
that unlimited funding is not an option. Therefore, program costs were analyzed to
optimize what was felt to be a reasonable pavement management program.
Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Street Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $458,000
Existing Budget $270,000
Increase in Budget $188,000
This program should be considered the foundation of a good pavement
management system. If funding becomes critical, the Global Maintenance - Street
Sealing Program should be the City’s highest priority. Surface sealing all the
streets in 1/8th (95% / 8 = 11.875%) of the city in each year will cost an estimated
$500,000 per year. This number includes both the seal coat and the preparation for
the seal coat. The seal coat is of limited benefit if placed on pavement that has
structural and base problems. These need to be fixed first.
The current program level is insufficient to meet this program objective. Currently
city staff are employed to prepare the surface area designated for the sealing
program. This will no longer be possible due to other priorities set by this
pavement management program and the size of area anticipated herein. Therefore,
additional resources (i.e. contract services) will be needed to adequately prepare
the streets for surface sealing. This may result in increased scope of work for the
sealing contractor or may be bid as a separate contract.
The last street sealing program (FY 96-97) sealed 8.0% of the street surface area
with a budget of $270,000. In order to seal the needed 12% area a total of
$405,000 is required ($270,000 x 12 / 8). The remaining $95,000 consists of
surface preparation services ($70,000) and contingencies ($25,000). If the full
funding recommended for major maintenance is implemented, the area for sealing
can be reduced to 10.8% (from 11.875%) or roughly 11% because roads newly
overlaid or reconstructed do not need to be sealed. Thus the appropriate funding
for sealing would be reduced to $458,000.
Downtown Street Program: Proposed Budget $150,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $150,000
An annual budget of $150,000 is proposed to allow staff to perform regular
maintenance of pavement in the City’s downtown area of the city. This work
would be primarily to grind and pave at this time because the existing pavement is
Page 416 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 29
in such poor condition. The amount of funding is based upon analysis by
MicroPaver to maintain the streets in this area without further deterioration (see
appendix F). This is a new program that places an emphasis on maintaining the
quality of the streets in the Downtown area. With time no longer spent preparing
street surface areas for the sealing program, City staff will perform this program.
Pothole Response Program: Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is an expansion of the current program whereby City staff will take a more
aggressive and pro-active approach to finding and filling potholes.
Grind and Paveout Program: Proposed Budget $90,000
Existing Budget $50,000
Increase in Budget $40,000
This program currently exists as simply the asphalt line item in the streets budget.
This program represents a new emphasis on how to accomplish maintenance in a
timely and effective manner. The program will be used to repair poor pavement
problems that cannot be included in the current Major Maintenance Program. City
staff will perform this program.
Crack Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is in essence a new program, as very little crack sealing currently takes place.
City staff will perform this task in the fall of each year - just prior to the rainy
season. This work extends pavement life by preventing water from penetrating
cracks. Workload issues will need to be addressed as this program is implemented.
Curb and Gutter Repair Program:
Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $16,500
Increase in Budget $ 3,500
This program, performed by City staff, represents an expanded curb and gutter
program, due to the need to repair and replace as much curb, gutter and sidewalk
as possible in the identified street seal area each year. Current funding: $16,500
($12,000 base + $4,500 mid -year adjustment).
Page 417 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 30
Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance
A substantial increase in funding for this type of maintenance is needed in order to have an
effect on the City’s overall average pavement condition.
Major Maintenance for all streets in designated “area” (Program 4.2.1):
Proposed Budget $1,000,000
Existing Budget $ 825,000
Increase in Budget $ 175,000
This recommended spending level, when combined with the recommendation for
non-designated area, represents a near two-fold increase in the allocation for major
maintenance. This type of maintenance is needed if streets in poor condition are
ever to become acceptable to the public again.
Major Maintenance for Arterials in non-designated area (Program 4.2.2):
Proposed Budget $500,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $500,000
Because the City cannot ignore the major arterial streets that serve the public on a
daily basis, funds are required to repair and rehabilitate streets. Should the
occasion arise when no such streets are identified, the funding should be
transferred to the area program for that year.
Major Maintenance - testing and evaluation:
Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
To make the most cost effective use of City funds, structural testing of existing
pavements should be done by consultants who specialize in this field.
Recommended Funding for Program Management
Inspect and input data: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $0
This represents no change to the existing capital improvement program budget and
will allow Cal Poly interns to continue to be used to gather and input the necessary
data.
Update Data of City operations: No budget change
City staff will be trained on how to input data from the daily work that they
perform. Data will most likely be input weekly.
Page 418 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 31
Inspect and update signs, etc.: No budget change
City staff will simply concentrate their current city-wide efforts into the design area
when needed.
Trench cut regulations: No budget change
City staff will research the effectiveness of other cities regulations and prepare for
Council adoption an effective regulation.
Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Add one new staff position: Proposed Budget $62,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $62,000
From a staffing perspective, the existing pavement management program has
floundered due to a combination of budget and staffing cut backs. The preparation
of this Plan took over two years to prepare, simply because there were too many
competing demands on existing staff resources. The recommended program
substantially expands the width and breadth over the existing program.
Traditionally paving projects receive the lowest of priority; not due to a disdain for
this type of project; but rather competing projects which demand higher priority.
Significant workload analysis of current staff output shows that each engineer is
able to design and produce for construction bidding approximately $1,000,000
worth of projects per year. Currently there is no staff person available to either
design existing paving projects, nor keep the existing pavement management plan
current.
A new staff (Civil Engineer) position is therefore recommended. Since this
program recommends a new emphasis on preservation of the City’s most valuable
asset, some staffing must be made available for that purpose. The increase
recommended in Major Maintenance justifies a new engineer position for design
purposes (about .6 position). This person could also provide the staffing to keep
existing funding levels of Major Maintenance on schedule by being assigned to the
pavement management program. Given the tasks of additionally managing the
hiring of student interns for data collection and input, running yearly program
recommendations and hiring consultants for pavement testing, yields the need for
an additional 500 hours per year or about a ¼ position. Thus to fully implement
the recommended pavement management program, a new full time engineering
position is recommended at a cost of approximately $ 62,000 per year.
Page 419 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 32
Funding Summary
Current
Funding
Proposed
Funding
Increase
Global Maintenance (Excludes Staffing Costs)
Street Resealing 270,000 458,000 188,000
Downtown Street Repair 150,000 150,000
Pothole response 10,000 20,000 10,000
Grind and Pave-out 50,000 90,000 40,000
Crack Sealing 10,000 10,000
Curb and Gutter Repair 16,500 20,000 3,500
Total Global Maintenance 346,500 748,000 401,500
Major Maintenance
Designated “Area” 825,000 1,000,000 175,000
Arterials not in “Area” 500,000 500,000
Testing and evaluation 10,000 10,000
Total Major Maintenance 825,000 1,510,000 685,000
Program Management
Inspection and data entry 10,000 10,000
Staffing for Program Management 62,000 62,000
Total Program Management 10,000 72,000 62,000
TOTAL $ 1,181,500 $2,330,000 $1,148,500
Page 420 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 33
FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
This Plan includes recommendations for a comprehensive Program which includes a
significant increase in funding levels in order to achieve a street system that is no longer in
a state of decline and in fact a state of gradual betterment that the City can be proud of.
The City of San Luis Obispo has traditionally funded all streets’ program from the General
Fund and no change is recommended or anticipated as a part of this document.
The General Fund is comprised of many elements, one of which is the state gas tax, a tax
collected in order to fund local road programs. However, the amount of state gas tax
available to the City is substantially less than the City is currently spending on pavement
management and should, therefore, not be looked upon to help serve the additional needs
created by this program’s recommendations.
There are many demands on a City to fund various programs. Unfortunately, street
maintenance is not able to be supported by an “enterprise” fund (such as water systems are
supported by a water fund, etc.) and therefore must compete with all other needs for
valuable general fund resources. It therefore becomes the province of the governing body
to determine what programs get prioritization and therefore funding.
As described earlier, the street system represents the City’s single largest capital
investment with a potential value of $60 million. Through deterioration, this asset has
depreciated to abo ut $43 million and unless additional resources are allocated this
deterioration and accompanying citizen complaints will continue. As seen earlier, a
$200,000 increase in program funding is necessary just to keep the system at its current
level. Any funding beyond that will make incremental improvements to the overall street
condition. This program recommends program funding levels that will make a significant
improvement to the street condition over a ten year period.
Is there any help on the horizon for additional funding for pavement management? The
answer is probably not. Currently, due to a good economy, the general fund has
additional resources that should be allocated toward increased levels of funding support
for pavement management. However, the cumulative effects of Proposition 13, 62 and
218 have made it virtually impossible to raise taxes or form special road improvement
districts to raise funds for the specific purpose of better road maintenance.
Additionally, the State of California, in order to balance its own budget a few years ago,
took funds traditionally designated for cities and diverted them to the State’s General
Fund. When that General Fund was once again in good fiscal health, the State did not
return those funds to the cities but either gave extra funds to other State programs or
provided a tax cut to the citizens of the State.
Currently, SLOCOG, the regional council of governments is researching the possibility of
asking the citizens to vote for a sales tax increase which would be designated for road
projects and maintenance. This may offer a ray of hope for additional pavement
management funding and that effort should be encouraged and supported.
Street cut fees are another potential source of revenue for pavement management; but
would be so insignificant that they should not be considered as contributing help to the
City’s general fund. For example, the City of Sacramento, which recently became the first
Page 421 of 488
Pavement Management Plan
Page 34
city to implement a comprehensive street cut fee, expects to receive ye arly fee revenues of
between $40,000 and $60,000. For a city the size of San Luis Obispo the yearly fees
would probably be in the $3,000 to $4,000 range. The emphasis on a comprehensive
street cut program is street preservation and not necessarily fee collection.
What’s the bottom line? Preserving the street system at its current level will require
additional resources from the City’s General Fund. Improving the street system will
require yet more resources from the City’s General Fund. This Plan recommends that the
City begin immediately with a substantial increase in funding and therefore a significant
beginning in roadway improvement. During periods of tight financial times, full funding
may not be possible. With biannual reviews of the program, and knowledge of the effects
of funding levels, financial decisions in the future will made on firm ground - knowing the
impacts to the street system of each funding decision.
I/CAR/PMP Pavement Report
Page 422 of 488
APPENDIX
Page 423 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 1
Appendix A
Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory
I. The City purchased the Micro Paver program from the University of Illinois. Two
employees attended a week long class to learn how to implement the program.
II. Following the directions in the manuals staff prepared forms for inventorying the
streets and recording pavement inspections.
III. Parameters were established regarding how the street system would be segmented
and ranked:
A. Streets would be divided into segments based on the age of pavement and
the volume of traffic.
1. Portions of a street built in different years would be in different
segments.
2. Portions of a street with differing traffic volumes would be in
different segments.
B. Streets would be assigned a rank based on common usage. This was to
recognize two things, streets with a higher rank generally have higher
traffic volumes, and streets with a higher rank receive more scrutiny from
the public. Rankings were as follows:
1. A-Downtown streets,
2. B-Arterial streets,
3. C-collector streets,
4. D-industrial local streets, and
5. E-local streets.
IV. Mapping parameters:
A. Streets that run in an easterly direction are mapped through intersections
with streets of equal rank that go in a northerly direction.
B. Streets that were a higher rank are mapped through the intersection of a
street of a lower rank.
V. Naming parameters:
A. Streets are named using their given name shortened to 4 characters.
Names beginning with Spanish prefixes such as Santa and La had the
prefix shortened to ‘S’, ‘L’, or as appropriate.
B. Street segments are labeled by naming the cross street at the westerly or
northerly end of the segment first and the other end second. Again the
Page 424 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 2
cross street names were shortened to 4 characters. Where possible the
names that were repetitive were reviewed so that the reader would
recognize the street by the abbreviated name. Example High Street is
‘High” and Highland is ‘Hlan’.
VI. The inventory created in 1987 was reviewed and was used as the basis for a new
inventory.
VII. The history of each street was researched by a student intern. The data sheets
from 1987 were reviewed and the construction plans viewed. In addition the index
was searched to identify whether the street had been worked on since the last
inventory was completed.
VIII. The student intern reviewed the data and determined where the street should be
segmented based on the parameters listed above.
IX. The inventory sheet was sent to the Auto Cad operator who mapped the pavement
of the street based on the information given on the inventory sheet. The AutoCad
operator calculated the length and area of the pavement. Sample units, sized at
232 Sq. Meters, were mapped and a copy of the map for each street printed. The
printed map was provided to a team of two students to perform field inspections.
X. Field inspections were carried out by a two person team. The inspections followed
the criteria defined in the inspection manuals provided for MicroPaver. Inspectors
recorded the condition of the pavement and verified the dimensional information
that had been gathered in the office.
XI. A student entered the Inventory and Inspection data in the computer data base.
XII. The data base was exported to the 955 Morro file service using the MicroPaver
Import and Export program. The export file was named using the date and initials
of the person exporting the file. This was done to provide the data for others to
use while the files were being updated and to provide a method of data protection
because the data files in the export file could not be corrupted by anyone using the
data base and they were backed up daily on that file server.
Anyone wishing to enter data or to use the file was instructed to import to their “C” drive
the most recent export file. Only one person could be adding information to the file at any
given time.
Page 425 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 3
Appendix B
Project-1997-98 Program Estimated Cost
0 0
California, NCL to Taft $220,000
Chorro, Marsh to Pismo $40,000
Johnson, Laurel to Southwood $135,000
Laurel, Johnson to Southwood $135,000
Southwood, Sinsheimer to Laurel $55,000
Santa Barbara, leff to Broad $110,000
Santa Rosa, Peach to Palm $90,000
Broad, Murray to 101 $110,000
Total $895,000
These projects were submitted to CalTrans last June for Cycle 9 of the State
Partnership program. The project list may be amended and changed prior to
June 1998 or the beginning of construction which ever occurs first.
Page 426 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 4
Appendix C
5 Year Work Program-$1.5 Million
per Year
Plan
Year
Branch Section Maintenance 7/1/98 7/1/99 7/1/00 7/1/01 7/1/02
AlHi FelMNEND Major M&R >= Critical 0 15,850 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Almd CentMiss Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,196 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Alri FlorEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,725 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Alta NEndCaza Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,414 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Andr MontEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,002 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SLDCone Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,477 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Atas GallOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 26,213 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Augu BishGerd Major M&R >= Critical 26,131 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
GerdLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 45,684 0
W/oLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 24,063
Auto LOVREnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 20,139 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Aval OceaOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 20,111 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bahi AlriSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 4,304 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BBee HighSand Major M&R >= Critical 0 7,463 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SandSout Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,492 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bent MeinMurr Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,352 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bish John264E Major M&R >= Critical 5,629 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BlCt EndBlue Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3,516 0 0
Bond HathKent Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,015 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BoxW WEndWave Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 6,158 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bran BeebBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 62,985 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Page 427 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 5
Bres WEndSerD Major M&R >= Critical 1,560 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bria WoodEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 12,229 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Broa 101Mont Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 68,165 0
HighSout Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 46,919 0
MarsHigh Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 179,687 0
MeinMurr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 14,721
MontMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 75,367 0
Murr101 Major M&R >= Critical 52,916 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Buch JohnSPRR Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,725 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OsosSRos Major M&R >= Critical 10,333 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bull 467S686S Major M&R >= Critical 7,148 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
686S847S Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,268 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
847SWill Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,066 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BVis NEndLoom Major M&R >= Critical 22,561 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cali FootTaft Major M&R >= Critical 66,841 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
CapW SacrEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,377 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Carm HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8,871 0 0
Cata LaEnEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,844 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Caud BroaVict Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,984 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Caza SanLAlis Major M&R >= Critical 23,536 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cent BroaLinc Major M&R >= Critical 24,889 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cerr CuesFerr Major M&R >= Critical 0 18,936 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
JeffCues Major M&R >= Critical 0 15,300 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
PatrJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,655 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Chan MitcLawr Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,288 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Chor HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
Page 428 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 6
0 0 0 40,086 0
MarsPism Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 29,769 0
MontHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8,396
Chur BroaSBar Major M&R >= Critical 0 23,926 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NipoBroa Major M&R >= Critical 10,659 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
CJoa LOVRNend Major M&R >= Critical 21,182 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Clov PtriRanc Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,985 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cone CazaEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,288 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Coup WestDart Major M&R >= Critical 22,718 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Crai NendPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,267 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
PatrJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,112 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cypr BranHigh Major M&R >= Critical 0 17,173 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Daly AlHiPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,045 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Dese WEndCasa Major M&R >= Critical 8,381 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
DNor Ramo145w Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,722 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Donn WEndJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,537 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
DSur RamoLEnt Major M&R >= Critical 21,841 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Edge HarmSotw Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,059 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SotwSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,287 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ElCe SanLCorr Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,675 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Elle NendMban Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,788 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ElmC RamoEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 1,501 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
FelM HlanPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 17,432 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Felt CuesFerr Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,682 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ferr CRomFoot Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12,856
NlanChor Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3,697 0 0
Page 429 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 7
Fixl WendLizz Major M&R >= Critical 4,188 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Flet BoulLeon Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,659 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Flor ElPaLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 121,587
KnolCarl Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 24,904
SpriKnol Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 23,484 0
SydnElPa Major M&R >= Critical 12,062 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Foot FerrSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 343,781
LCerPatr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 40,386
Fran BroaVict Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,055 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Fred LongGran Major M&R >= Critical 41,320 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gall OceaAtas Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 26,507 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gard HiguPism Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 31,949 0
Gerd NEndAugu Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,716 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gran LoomMinS Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 46,880
LoomMonN Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 44,710
SlacMcCo Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 38,098
Greg JohnEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,693 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Grov PhilMont Major M&R >= Critical 21,799 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WilsPhil Major M&R >= Critical 0 18,833 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hath CarpCali Major M&R >= Critical 0 28,534 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hays Gran70He Major M&R >= Critical 0 22,798 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hend LoomSlac Major M&R >= Critical 35,683 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Henr GeorElla Major M&R >= Critical 0 2,301 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
IrisGeor Major M&R >= Critical 5,529 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Herm LEntLune Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,767 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
High CyprSBar Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
Page 430 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 8
0 0 0 0 122,931
Higu HindMeiE Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 7,370 0 0
MarsNipo Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 287,561 0 0
MeisPraE Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 32,142 0
NipoSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 361,847 0
SC/LVacE Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12,174
VachSubr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8,444
HilS NEndLinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,363 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hlan FerrSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 10,617
NChoFerr Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 68,348
PatrEPat Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 12,135 0
WEndPatr Major M&R >= Critical 0 38,219 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hutt SandHigh Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,315 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Iris JohnFixl Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,558 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Isla BroaToro Major M&R >= Critical 62,521 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
JayC WEndCrai Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,653 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Jeff DalyMarl Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,430 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Jenn SwazRach Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,482 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
John BishLaur Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 182,132
Kent HathBond Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,822 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
King SandBran Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,175 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Kntw SouwSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,447 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lake BalbOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,269 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Laur JohnSout Major M&R >= Critical 50,281 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LawD TangOrcu Major M&R >= Critical 0 8,571 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LeeA NEndTanD Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,447 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Page 431 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 9
Leff NipoOsos Major M&R >= Critical 0 32,642 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OsosSRos Major M&R >= Critical 12,026 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LEnt SEndCata Major M&R >= Critical 0 11,466 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lima MadFHuas Major M&R >= Critical 0 20,402 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Linc BroaChor Major M&R >= Critical 6,955 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ChorWes Major M&R >= Critical 48,490 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
HillBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,364 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lizz JohnWild Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 18,339
LLom EndLCerr Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,403 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Long HathSlac Major M&R >= Critical 12,014 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Loom BVisSMig Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 11,978 0
SMigSYne Major M&R >= Critical 11,685 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LOVR 101LVerd Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 16,667
LRob OakrEend Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,012 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lune LaEnVerd Major M&R >= Critical 0 30,800 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WEndLaEn Major M&R >= Critical 5,269 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mado LOVRPere Major M&R >= Critical 13,720 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OceaPO Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 66,152
PODali Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 32,844
MarC NEndOcea Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,127 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Marg SHigEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 40,101 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Marl PatrJeff Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,070 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mars JohnCali Major M&R >= Critical 25,954 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SLCKNipo Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 62,501 0 0
McCl GranBVis Major M&R >= Critical 36,151 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
McMi NEndMori Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 4,172 0 0
Page 432 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 10
0 0 0 0 0
Mein BroaChor Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,749 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mill CaliGrov Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 62,363
OsosSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 78,027
Mitc MeadBroa Major M&R >= Critical 32,554 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mnta LemoElle Major M&R >= Critical 10,382 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LincSCrk Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,941 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SRosLemo Major M&R >= Critical 12,693 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mont NipoBroa Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 16,115 0 0
Pepp101 Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 143,902 0
SRosToro Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 19,905 0 0
Montr PasaSkyl Major M&R >= Critical 0 24,645 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Morr MarsPism Major M&R >= Critical 6,673 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MontMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 61,201 0
PalmMont Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 18,258 0 0
PismUpha Major M&R >= Critical 0 29,028 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MouV HillLinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 25,624 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Murr BroaSRos Major M&R >= Critical 27,537 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Nipo HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 47,289 0 0
MarsBuch Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 34,685 0 0
PalmHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 91,470 0
Oakr HlanNend Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,681 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ocea MadoPinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 18,911 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Olea NEndIron Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,503 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Oran HathBond Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,850 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Osos 101Waln Major M&R >= Critical 2,528 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Page 433 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 11
ChurSPRR Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 19,913
MillHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 39,309 0 0
Paci BroaSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 57,684 0 0
JohnPepp Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,769 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Palm NipoSRos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 453,565 0 0
Pasa MiraSkyl Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,276 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Peac NipoBro Major M&R >= Critical 20,637 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ToroPepp Major M&R >= Critical 20,479 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Penn BuchEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 4,842 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pepp MarsPaci Major M&R >= Critical 0 4,500 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pere MadoGarc Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,806 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Phil CaliPark Major M&R >= Critical 0 23,654 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pism HiguNipo Major M&R >= Critical 50,445 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NipoOsos Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 59,751
Prad SLCkHigC Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 14,037
SLCkHigN Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4,822
Pric HighBran Major M&R >= Critical 16,669 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
RacC RachEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 5,983 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rafa RamoSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,172 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ramo LEntTass Major M&R >= Critical 243,274 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ranc ClovWest Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,250 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NEndClov Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,258 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rock PerkBroa Major M&R >= Critical 45,089 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rose LaurSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 16,512 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rosi FootCRom Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,142 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SaCa DelCHele Major M&R >= Critical 0 6,624 0 0 0
Page 434 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 12
0 0 0 0 0
Sacr CapiIndu Major M&R >= Critical 0 32,721 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sand BeebBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 60,853 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SBar LeffBroa Major M&R >= Critical 60,187 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SJos WEndLEnt Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,751 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sklk WoodSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 11,712 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Skyl MiraPasa Major M&R >= Critical 0 9,869 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MontMira Major M&R >= Critical 0 15,878 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Slac LongGran Major M&R >= Critical 42,496 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Smit WEndJohn Major M&R >= Critical 0 7,231 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SnDr HeleAugu Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 10,390 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sout FernKent Major M&R >= Critical 4,758 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
KentJohn Major M&R >= Critical 7,817 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SinsLaur Major M&R >= Critical 22,783 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WoodFern Major M&R >= Critical 4,493 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SRos HiguMars Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 87,773 0 0
PalmHigu Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 156,691 0 0
PeacPalm Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 89,102 0
PismSPRR Major M&R >= Critical 0 33,610 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WalnPeac Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 86,469 0 0
Staf CaliKent Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,664 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
KentEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,752 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Swee RockBroa Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 11,854 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
TanD JohnSyca Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,189 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
KentJohn Major M&R >= Critical 0 12,159 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SycaEdge Major M&R >= Critical 0 34,418 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Page 435 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 13
TFRd HiguEC/L Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 31,843 0
PoinSPRR Major M&R >= Critical 48,957 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
TngC NEndTanD Major M&R >= Critical 0 3,467 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Toro MontSLCK Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 106,075 0
PhilWaln Major M&R < Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 15,158 0
TwiR WEndEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 0 23,341 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Upha HighChor Major M&R >= Critical 22,134 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Vena ChorLinc Major M&R >= Critical 0 14,737 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Verd LuneEEnd Major M&R >= Critical 0 10,650 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Vice PeriCayu Major M&R >= Critical 0 27,954 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wild LizzSEnd Major M&R >= Critical 19,655 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wils GrovPark Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,925 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wmon PatrWJef Major M&R >= Critical 0 16,694 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WNew NewpCora Major M&R >= Critical 0 13,330 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wodb BroaVict Major M&R >= Critical 0 7,364 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Total Sum of Major Above Critical Funded 1,499,50
8
1,499,78
6
108,365 0 0
Total Sum of Major Under Critical Funded 0 0 1,391,25
8
1,497,96
2
1,497,943
Appendix C
Five year work plan
Page 436 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 14
Appendix D
Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
Bus Routes
Surface Material
Rank AAC AC APC PCC
Downtown
Streets
% of Area Used by
Buses
66.6% 0.0% 86.1
%
0.0%
% of Length used by
Buses
55.4% 0.0% 82.2
%
0.0%
Arterial Streets % of Area Used by
Buses
77.7% 15.3% 100.
0%
100.0
%
% of Length used by
Buses
75.6% 97.0% 100.
0%
100.0
%
Collector Streets % of Area Used by
Buses
22.6% 45.1% 51.7
%
0.0%
% of Length used by
Buses
27.9% 45.4% 53.8
%
0.0%
Local Streets % of Area Used by
Buses
1.9% 3.9% 17.9
%
0.0%
% of Length used by
Buses
1.8% 3.4% 17.9
%
0.0%
AC Asphalt Pavement.
AAC Asphalt Pavement that has been overlaid.
PCC Concrete Pavement.
APC Concrete Pavement that has been overlaid with asphalt.
Page 437 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 15
Appendix E
Existing Pavement Deficiency
Family Existing PCI PCI in 10 years Current Deficiency
Central Business
District Streets
48 35 $1,900,000
Arterial and
Collector Streets
60 44 $7,700,000
Local Streets (Not
resurfaced)
80 64 $3,600,000
Local Streets
(Already resurfaced)
68 52 $3,400,000
Streets used for Bus
Routes (Included in
above families)
56 43 $7,600,000
Total Deficiency 70 55 $16,600,000
Page 438 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 16
Appendix F
Condition -Central Business
District-$150,000 per year
Year
Avg
Condition
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1 2 3 4
Page 439 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 17
Appendix G
Annual Work Plan
First Year Second Budget Year Third Budget Year
Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Inventory and Inspection
Planning Program
Preparing Plans for Infra Damage
Preparing Plans for M&R Program
Preparing Plans for MicroSurface
Repairing Damaged Infrastructure
Construction of M&R Program
Constructing Microsurface Project
Utility Project design
Utility Project construction
This schedule requires strong continuous
oversight. Utility projects may need more
lead time to be accomplishable within this
schedule.
Filled Boxes indicate work program for an area of
the city. Unfilled Boxes indicate work program
activities occurring in another work area at the
same time.
Page 440 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 18
Appendix H
Budgets required in one year to raise overall pavement condition.
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
97 86 84 80 72 71 70
PCIBudget Major above Critical
Major below Critical
Seal
Preventive
Stop Gap
Page 441 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 19
Appendix I
Appendix I
Page 442 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 20
Appendix J
One Year - $4 Million Program
Sum of Funded Work
Street Limits Major M&R >= Critical Micro Surface
Abbo GranHend 0 5,738
AlHi FelMNEND 0 6,891
Alic MargNEnd 0 1,316
Alis NEndCaza 0 1,692
Almd CentMiss 0 5,026
Alph BroaEEnd 7,070 0
Alri FlorEEnd 0 6,402
Alta NEndCaza 0 3,230
Anac WEndPatr 0 4,184
Andr ConeEEnd 0 2,717
MontEEnd 0 1,740
SLDCone 0 3,872
Aral EEndBroo 0 3,243
Ashm WEndWave 0 3,699
Atas GallOcea 0 10,471
Augu BishGerd 26,131 0
GerdLaur 28,264 0
Auto LOVREnd 0 8,756
Aval OceaOcea 0 5,792
Bahi AlriSEnd 0 1,871
Balb OceaCora 0 10,722
Band CorrSEnd 0 1,633
Bara NEndSout 0 3,936
BBee HighSand 0 2,660
SandSout 0 4,187
Bent MeinMurr 0 5,071
Binn EllaSEnd 0 1,487
Bish AuguJohn 0 4,142
BushAugu 0 7,264
John264E 5,295 0
BlCt EndBlue 0 1,012
Blue WBCtRock 0 4,041
Bond HathKent 0 4,866
KentLong 0 2,430
Bone EmplSuel 0 5,447
Boro AtasMado 0 1,531
Boug PoinHoll 0 7,032
Boul SylvSEnd 0 11,900
BoxW WEndWave 0 2,975
Boys ChorSRos 0 9,304
Page 443 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 21
Bran BeebBroa 0 20,066
Bres WEndSerD 0 525
Bria WoodEEnd 12,229 0
Brid BeeBEEnd 0 5,687
Broa MeinMurr 0 3,729
Murr101 52,916 0
Brok SouSWEnd 0 2,119
Broo TankSawl 0 5,297
Buch JohnSPRR 0 1,488
OsosSRos 10,333 0
SRosJohn 0 6,820
Bull 467S686S 7,148 0
686S847S 0 1,288
847SWill 0 2,637
Will445S 0 2,760
Bush FlorSEnd 0 4,875
BVis NEndLoom 22,561 0
CaJa NEndSend 0 3,980
Cali FootTaft 66,841 0
MontSLDr 0 5,550
TaftPhil 0 12,915
CaLu MargCaJa 0 6,417
CaMa NEndSend 0 3,784
Came MargNEnd 0 1,533
Capi CastEEnd 0 8,039
CapW SacrEnd 0 5,381
Cari NEndMari 0 1,640
Carl FlorEEnd 0 1,928
Carp FootHath 0 2,116
Casi DiabEnd 0 2,223
Cast NEndPref 0 5,546
Cata LaEnEnd 0 1,862
Caud BroaVict 0 2,602
WEndMead 0 755
Cava GallGall 0 9,471
Caza SanLAlis 0 6,778
Ceci AuguEnd 0 3,467
Cent BroaLinc 24,889 0
CerC CerrEnd 0 1,293
Cerr CuesFerr 0 5,877
JeffCues 0 6,652
LosCRosi 0 4,872
PatrJeff 0 4,633
RosiPatr 0 1,866
Chan MitcLawr 0 1,690
Chor FootWest 0 9,064
MontHigu 0 2,418
PalmMont 0 2,165
Page 444 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 22
PismBuch 0 3,463
WestLinc 0 16,560
Chri CraiWarr 0 3,202
Chup WEndLPra 0 7,842
Chur BroaSBar 0 8,050
NipoBroa 10,659 0
OsosEEnd 0 2,243
Cima WoodEEnd 0 1,671
CJoa LOVRNend 22,520 0
Clov PtriRanc 0 1,732
RancSkyl 0 5,061
Coli NEndFlor 0 3,433
Colu PoinEEnd 0 3,220
Cone CazaEEnd 0 4,254
Cord FramEnd 0 7,831
Corl GallGulf 0 8,618
Coro FlorEnd 0 2,552
Corr Corr 0 4,347
SendWood 0 5,639
Cort PrefNEnd 0 3,314
Coup WestDart 22,718 0
Crai NendPatr 0 2,290
PatrJeff 0 4,831
Cres TanDTanD 0 7,344
Cuca NEndRoya 0 3,294
Cues FootHlan 0 9,070
Cumb WoodEEnd 0 1,603
Cycl WEndHoll 0 3,602
Cypr BranHigh 0 5,195
Dahl PoinEEnd 0 2,619
Dali MadoEnd 0 3,614
Daly AlHiPatr 0 1,533
Dart CuesCoup 0 2,593
DeAn DelRSEnd 0 2,695
DelR CordDiab 0 3,906
DescPref 0 4,414
DiabPort 0 6,853
PortDesc 0 985
Desc DelRLOVR 0 5,444
LOVRVist 0 7,164
Dese WEndCasa 8,381 0
Diab CityDelR 0 3,079
DelRLOVR 0 5,633
LOVRVist 0 4,405
DMar WEndRamo 0 6,701
DNor 145WLEnt 0 2,976
Ramo145w 0 3,792
Donn WEndJeff 0 1,973
Page 445 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 23
Drak OceaBalb 0 6,997
DSur RamoLEnt 21,841 0
Dunc NEndOrcu 0 4,494
ECeC NEndElCe 0 3,178
Edge HarmSotw 0 1,198
SotwSEnd 0 3,192
ElCa NEndFlor 0 2,630
ElCe SanLCorr 5,535 0
ElCr ElCeEnd 0 7,432
Elle MbanSEnd 0 1,451
NendMban 0 3,118
ElmC RamoEEnd 0 653
ElPa ElCeEnd 0 2,499
ElTi NEndMado 0 4,836
EMer MadoSEnd 0 11,408
Empl BoneGran 0 3,909
Empr BonePrad 0 4,239
Enci NEndElCe 0 1,905
Escu VistSEnd 0 1,846
Este NEndMarg 0 2,238
Expo SouSCorr 0 8,766
FaiW NEndRoya 0 3,375
RoyaPart 0 1,591
FelM HlanPatr 0 7,579
Felt CuesFerr 0 5,079
TassCues 0 1,372
Fern SoutOrcu 38,654 0
Fixl WendLizz 4,188 0
Flet BoulLeon 0 2,461
FloA BishSanC 0 2,188
BushBish 0 2,750
Flor CarlElCa 0 2,785
SydnElPa 12,779 0
Foot WC/LLCer 0 6,080
Fram MiraEnd 0 6,376
Fran BroaVict 0 2,294
Fred HathLong 0 7,537
LongGran 41,320 0
Fullr EndSunf 0 7,546
Gail CaudSEnd 0 1,538
Gall OceaAtas 0 11,525
Gana CorrSEnd 0 1,633
Gard BuchUpha 0 11,200
Gerd NEndAugu 0 2,260
Gold PoinSEnd 0 2,258
Grav GarfAbbo 0 2,526
Greg JohnEEnd 0 1,385
Gret AuguSydn 10,451 0
Page 446 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 24
Grna EmplSuel 0 7,084
SHigEmpl 0 4,965
Grov PhilMont 21,799 0
WilsPhil 0 5,424
Gulf LakeAtas 0 6,115
Harm SequEdge 0 5,529
Hath CarpCali 0 8,632
LongCarp 0 8,889
Hays Gran70He 0 6,897
Hend GarfAbbo 0 2,541
LoomSlac 0 10,277
Henr GeorElla 0 774
IrisGeor 5,529 0
Herm LEntLune 0 5,355
HigF HiguGran 0 4,631
High HiguCypr 0 7,696
SPRRSBar 0 1,776
Higu SC/LVacE 0 2,265
VachSubr 0 2,139
HilS LincSEnd 0 7,939
NEndLinc 0 4,940
Hlan PatrEPat 7,840 0
PatrPatr 0 4,620
WEndPatr 0 12,508
HolW BougTaFa 0 8,868
Howa WEndPhil 0 2,134
Huas MadFCayu 0 9,242
Humb BroaVict 0 2,888
Hutt BranSand 0 2,407
SandHigh 0 2,393
Iris JohnFixl 0 2,409
Iron BrooWave 0 6,408
Isla BroaToro 0 18,006
Jali DelRSEnd 0 2,695
Jami NEndTanW 0 1,690
JayC WEndCrai 0 4,197
Jeff CRomHlan 0 8,194
DalyMarl 0 1,880
FootCRom 0 1,047
MarlWmon 0 1,846
Jenn SwazRach 0 1,322
John BishLaur 0 41,175
LaurSout 64,093 0
SoutOrcu 0 14,640
Kent HathBond 0 3,981
King BranSouS 0 1,304
HighSand 0 2,361
SandBran 0 2,434
Page 447 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 25
SouSSEnd 0 4,873
Kntw SouwSEnd 0 4,737
LaCi NEndJohn 0 3,078
Lade WoodSEnd 0 2,752
Lagu LOVRVist 0 8,593
Lake BalbOcea 0 3,037
LaLu DelREnd 0 2,695
Laur FlorJohn 0 2,145
JohnSout 50,281 0
LaVi LaguVisL 0 1,700
LawC LawnEEnd 0 1,606
LawD TangOrcu 0 3,672
Lawr WEndMead 0 1,913
LCan CRomTolo 0 5,077
LCerr NEndFoot 0 8,215
LeeA NEndTanD 0 2,443
Leff OsosSRos 12,026 0
LEnt CataFoot 0 7,692
SEndCata 0 4,842
Leon SanCFlet 0 1,817
SanCSEnd 0 2,693
Lily PoinEnd 0 2,227
Lima MadFHuas 0 8,041
Linc BroaChor 7,347 0
ChorWes 48,490 0
HillBroa 0 1,970
Liri MargNEnd 0 1,328
Lizz JohnWild 0 4,381
LLom EndLCerr 0 1,808
Lobe WEndHoll 0 4,222
Long HathSlac 13,152 0
Loom SMigSYne 11,404 0
LOVR 101LVerd 0 4,800
DescPerf 0 10,260
LosVerdes 0 3,660
MadoEC/L 0 2,406
OceaRoya 0 9,880
PerfOcea 0 28,318
RoyaMado 0 14,625
WC/LDesc 0 28,490
LPie EndExpo 0 1,010
LPra MariSHig 0 6,431
LRob OakrEend 0 2,209
Lune LaEnVerd 0 13,391
VerdEEnd 0 3,901
WEndLaEn 5,269 0
LVin JohnEEnd 0 3,292
Mado C/LLOVR 0 7,520
Page 448 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 26
DaliElMe 0 10,970
ElMe101 0 27,720
LOVRPere 13,300 0
OceaPO 51,928 0
PereOcea 0 17,500
PODali 0 6,704
Madr CorrSEnd 0 1,572
MarC NEndOcea 0 1,794
Marg SHigEnd 0 17,435
Mari LPraLPra 0 10,233
Marl PatrJeff 0 5,332
Mars JohnCali 31,273 0
SLCKNipo 0 18,000
SRosJohn 0 20,064
MarW NEndLVin 0 1,586
McCl GranBVis 36,151 0
McMi NEndMori 0 1,814
Mead SouMitc 0 10,358
Mein BroaChor 0 4,352
ChorSRos 0 4,398
Migu NOENViEs 0 2,585
Mira PasoSkyl 0 4,028
MirD FramEnd 0 7,300
MisL BroaSEnd 0 2,756
Miss BroaChor 0 5,112
ChorLinc 0 4,985
Mitc MeadBroa 32,554 0
Mnta LemoElle 10,382 0
LincSCrk 0 1,714
SRosLemo 12,693 0
Mont ChorSRos 0 16,560
ToroPepp 0 9,225
Montr PasaSkyl 0 7,098
Morr PismMars 7,828 0
UphaPism 0 11,000
MouV HillLinc 0 7,752
MrGl TaFaFull 0 6,857
Murr BroaSRos 27,537 0
Newp WNewEEnd 0 8,476
Oakr HlanNend 0 5,465
Oakw KentEEnd 0 1,340
Ocea MadoPinc 0 8,222
Olea NEndIron 0 1,523
Oliv SRosLemo 0 3,430
Oran HathBond 0 3,511
Osos 101Waln 2,397 0
ChurSPRR 0 3,705
PaciChur 0 15,216
Page 449 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 27
Paci JohnPepp 0 3,956
Palo RamoSerr 0 5,711
Part QuaiQuai 0 9,417
Pasa MiraSkyl 0 6,117
MrosMira 0 5,075
PatC PatrEEnd 0 2,595
Patr DalyHigh 0 4,191
HighFoot 32,184 0
TwinPatr 0 4,877
Peac ChorOsos 18,743 0
SRosToro 0 3,442
ToroPepp 20,479 0
Penn BuchEEnd 4,842 0
Pepp MarsPaci 0 1,328
PhilMars 0 13,141
Pere MadoGarc 0 6,437
Perk RockBroa 0 1,763
Phil CaliPark 0 7,156
JohnPepp 0 2,531
Pine MadFOcea 0 6,309
Pism HiguNipo 50,445 0
OsosSRos 0 3,485
SRosJohn 0 7,709
Poin BougTaFa 0 6,825
LilySnap 0 13,658
TaFaLily 0 17,411
Popp MrGlEAEN 0 2,678
Port 211EDelR 0 3,428
Capi211E 0 1,392
Prad HiguEC/L 0 18,817
Pref HedlLOVR 0 16,116
WEndHedl 0 15,261
Pric HighBran 16,669 0
Prkr HighSouS 0 5,733
QuaC NEndQuai 0 1,396
Quai PartRoyW 0 6,154
Rafa RamoSEnd 0 5,292
Ramo DSurLEnt 0 5,702
ElmVerd 0 1,670
LEntTass 246,568 0
PaloBroa 0 5,712
TassElm 0 1,771
VerdPalo 0 4,565
Ranc ClovWest 0 3,798
NEndClov 0 1,376
Reba WEENAugu 0 1,902
Rica NOENSacr 0 5,044
Robe NOENViEs 0 2,335
Page 450 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 28
Rock PerkBroa 45,089 0
StonPerk 0 1,843
RosC PoinEnd 0 2,780
Rose LaurSEnd 0 4,755
Rosi CRomNend 0 1,388
FootCRom 0 1,366
Roug WEndEEnd 0 3,515
RoyC NEndRoya 0 1,998
RoyW FairLOVR 0 20,000
LOVRGall 0 5,415
RubiFair 0 2,323
Rubi NEndRoya 0 4,030
SaCa DelCHele 0 2,880
FlorLeon 0 2,223
HeleAugu 0 4,271
LeonDelC 0 2,255
WEndFlor 0 1,561
Sacr CapiIndu 0 12,897
NEndCapi 0 5,680
SanA DescPref 0 4,293
SanC DescEEnd 0 4,171
Sand BeebBroa 0 22,354
Sant HeleSaCa 0 4,372
SawC BrooEEnd 0 1,794
SBar LeffBroa 46,867 0
Seaw PineOcea 0 4,162
Send WoodEEnd 0 1,603
Sequ HarmSouW 0 762
SerD SerHBroa 0 10,180
SerH WEndSerD 0 3,542
SieW EllaNBis 0 4,463
NBisBish 0 4,043
SJos WEndLEnt 0 3,425
Sklk WoodSEnd 11,712 0
Skyl MiraPasa 0 3,890
MontMira 0 4,573
Slac LongGran 41,476 0
SLDr CaliJohn 0 20,130
SLuc CRonTolo 0 4,833
Smit WEndJohn 0 2,850
Snde CorrSEnd 0 2,597
Sonr VistWEnd 0 1,781
SouS WEndHigu 0 4,119
Sout FernKent 5,023 0
JohnSyca 0 4,275
KentJohn 8,029 0
LaurWood 0 3,907
SinsLaur 22,783 0
Page 451 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 29
WoodFern 4,891 0
SRos PismSPRR 35,304 0
Staf CaliKent 0 4,799
KentEEnd 0 4,943
Sten NendMurr 0 4,761
Ston WRocBroa 0 6,719
Stor HighBran 0 4,802
Suel BoneGran 0 5,096
Sunf FullPoin 0 7,895
Swee RockBroa 0 3,679
Sydn FlorEEnd 0 2,306
GretAugu 0 1,203
HeleGret 0 4,023
JohnFlor 0 4,471
TanD JohnSyca 0 3,428
KentJohn 0 4,091
SycaEdge 0 13,749
Tass FootRamo 0 3,029
RamoSEnd 0 6,565
ToloFoot 0 7,068
TFRd BroadPoins 0 9,614
PoinSPRR 50,301 0
SPRROrcutt 0 23,112
TngC NEndTanD 0 1,423
Tolo SLucTass 0 4,185
Toro PhilWaln 0 2,701
SLCKLeff 50,870 0
Tuli EndSunf 0 3,317
Turn WilNEnd 0 946
TwiR WEndEEnd 0 10,148
Upha ChorMorr 0 2,969
HighChor 22,134 0
Vall MiraEnd 0 2,471
Vega VisBVisA 0 2,497
Vena ChorLinc 0 4,244
Verd LuneEEnd 0 4,373
Vice PeriCayu 0 9,676
Vict WoodFran 0 4,798
ViEs NOENSacr 0 6,025
VisA VisCDesc 0 4,050
VisB DescSEnd 0 1,479
DiabDesc 0 8,456
VisC DescSEnd 0 2,519
VisBDesc 0 7,366
VisL LaViWEnd 0 12,627
Vist VistSEnd 0 1,530
Waln SRosToro 0 3,626
Ward SandHigh 0 2,464
Page 452 of 488
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 30
Warr JeffPatr 0 4,656
Wave TankSAsh 0 8,617
Wild LizzSEnd 19,655 0
Will BullEnd 0 2,939
Wils GrovPark 0 4,321
Wist SunfEnd 0 2,889
Wmon PatrWJef 0 6,854
WNew NewpCora 0 5,712
Wodb BroaVict 0 3,202
CorrLade 0 11,752
LadeLawt 0 7,342
WoSd NEndSend 43,902 0
Yarr PoinEnd 0 2,428
Zaca WEndSHig 0 7,239
Grand Total 1,733,961 2,265,806
Page 453 of 488
Page 454 of 488
council.ac En Oa RepoRtA
Meeting Dat e
10-6-0 9
hem Number
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Jay D . Walter, Director of Public Workq
Prepared By :
Barbara Lynch, City Enginee r
SUBJECT : 2009 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIE W
RECOMMENDATION S
1.Receive a report from Margot Yapp of Nichols Consulting Engineers on its peer review o f
the City's Pavement Management Plan .
2.Adjust the priorities and goals established in the original Pavement Management Plan t o
reflect higher priorities for arterial streets and increase the amount of visual confirmation o f
arterial street condition, where concerns are the greatest .
REPORT-IN-BRIE F
After 10 years of implementing strategies from the adopted 1998 Pavement Management Plan ,
the City Council requested that a peer review be performed by a pavement management
professional to provide feedback on the program and make recommendations for improvements .
The findings from the City's consultant, Margot Yapp of Nichols Consulting Engineers, indicat e
that the basic program is still sound regarding standards in the industry for pavemen t
management, however, a couple of adjustments are recommended . Specifically, the Consultan t
recommends increasing the priority for arterial street repairs and switching to a mor e
understandable measurement to show progress .
DISCUSSION
Backgroun d
In 1998 the City Council took action to approve a Pavement Management Plan (PMP .) The City
had used pavement management strategies in the past ; however, this more formal document ,
along with associated software, modernized the City's strategies for managing pavemen t
maintenance . As part of the program, the Council set a long-term goal of a Pavement Conditio n
Index (PCI) of 80 . The Pavement Condition Index is a rating scale of 1-100 used to reflect th e
condition of the pavement with 100 being the best rating.
When the program was started in 1998, the City's streets were rated to have an average PCI o f
around 70 . As of the most recent evaluation, the PCI remains at about the same level, havin g
peaked two years ago at 75 . When considering only arterials and collector streets, the PCI at th e
start of the program in 1998 was 61 . The most recent evaluation indicates a PCI of 72 for thes e
streets, with a peak two years ago of about 77 . It should be noted that during the 2005-07 budget
Page 455 of 488
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 2
cycle, neighborhood paving was suspended and work focused only on arterials, which coul d
have led to the slight decline . Citywide, the percentage of streets with a PCI less than 40 ha s
decreased overall by 5% since 1998, equating to a 4% decrease for local streets and an 11 %
decrease for arterials and collectors . This indicates that the projects implemented during the las t
10 years have reduced the number of poor streets .
Pavement Managemen t
The fundamental principle of modem pavement management is that it is less costly in the lon g
run to maintain streets than it is to reconstruct them . Once a section of pavement has deteriorate d
to the point where it has to be rebuilt to function properly, the only real option is reconstruction .
If a street is still in good or fair condition, maintenance treatments can be applied to extend th e
life of the pavement that are less costly than reconstruction . The other benefit to extendin g
pavement life is that these maintenance treatments are generally less disruptive to the communit y
than reconstruction .
Common pavement management strategies typically prioritize maintenance of the good and fai r
streets ahead of repairing poor streets . While this approach has proven to save money in the lon g
run, the downside is that it is counter-intuitive to the public . They see that the worst streets ar e
not being repaired, yet sealing or overlays are being placed on "good" streets . The City has bee n
fortunate in that for most of the years the program has been in place, sufficient funds have been
made available to complete a substantial amount of work, including some on the poor streets ,
minimizing inquiries from citizens .
As part of the original PMP, the City was divided into areas to facilitate planning . The City
currently has nine pavement areas : eight neighborhoods and the downtown . The eight
neighborhoods are rotated through on an annual basis, and the downtown is worked on as neede d
and as funding is available . See Attachment 1 for the City's pavement area map . Pavement
maintenance is performed this way so that other work (especially underground utility and cur b
and gutter projects) can be done prior to the sealing or overlay . This predictable planning an d
construction method reduces the likelihood that new pavement will be cut to complete anothe r
City project a short time later .
Status of the Current Progra m
The City has now been operating under these basic principles since 1998 . In the summer of 2008 ,
CIP projects for sealing and paving were completed in Area 1 to start off the second rotatio n
since plan adoption . Area 2 sealing and overlay work planned for this year has just bee n
completed . As the second rotation begins, staff is seeing fewer streets that need reconstructio n
and the increased ability to use a relatively inexpensive microsurfacing seal on more streets .
The rotation program has also brought a much higher level of coordination with Cit y
underground utility projects . Prior to the adoption of the PMP, it was unknown where pavin g
was to occur until the streets were field reviewed, so it was not possible to plan work very far i n
advance . The pavement area rotation approach allows advanced planning to program an d
complete underground work prior to paving or sealing a street . Trench cuts are a leadin g
contributor to reductions in pavement life .
Page 456 of 488
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 3
The City's Street Maintenance program (performed by City crews) also benefits from th e
rotation approach because it gives it a clear timeline and defined area to complete work . Staff
can complete high quality spot repairs and crack sealing in advance of work in a particular area .
The maintenance staff also knows which streets in the area might be skipped due to their
advanced deterioration so that more substantial repairs can be performed to extend street life an d
reduce complaints . The Street Supervisor reports that in recent years, pothole reports have gon e
from about 15 per day to about 2 per week . This is a direct result of the City's investment i n
equipment that allows staff to make better repairs at recurring sites, rather than just filling th e
hole with patch material . This level of maintenance work, done in concert with an aggressiv e
contract maintenance program, allows the City to keep its maintenance staffing levels low whil e
maintaining a high level of service .
A recent article in the Tribune surveying cities throughout the county indicated the City of Sa n
Luis Obispo has the largest percentage of streets in good condition. The PMP has worked a s
intended to reduce the backlog of streets needing reconstruction and, when funded to adequat e
levels, to raise the PCI . Pavement deterioration is continual (with or without maintenance) an d
while the City has not made significant gains in the PCI, it has maintained the road condition s
and made some strong improvements on arterial and collector streets .
The Consultant has confirmed that a structured program, like the City uses, is still th e
recommended approach for long term stewardship of city streets . The question now is, shoul d
some refinements be made to better serve the community .
Peer Review by the Consultan t
Review Approac h
Over the last year, two members of the City Council have asked questions about paving prioritie s
and strategies for maintenance . During the 2009-11 Financial Plan process staff suggested that a
peer review be completed of the City's Pavement Management plan and methodology for annua l
street selections . The Council agreed with this approach that will help either confirm or alter th e
pavement maintenance program to assure the City is spending its funds in the most cost effectiv e
way.
Staff hired a consultant who specializes in pavement management to complete a peer review .
The Consultant brings a depth of experience in paving and can share experiences of other
communities with the Council . (Attachment 2 Consultant's resume) The scope of work was not a
highly detailed review of all the processes and data the staff uses, but rather was intended t o
confirm that the City is on the right track, or if not, to recommend adjustments . The resulting
report did not define a set of detailed recommendations, but rather provided guidance towar d
improvements. (Attachment 3 Consultant's report) Staff has used this guidance to build detaile d
recommendations for Council's consideration .
Council Interview s
It was important for staff to be certain of what the Council concerns were regarding pavemen t
management . To that end, staff and the Consultant met individually with two members who ha d
expressed concerns at meetings to discuss the issue in more detail . The consultant also reviewe d
the existing Plan and interviewed the PMP Manager in the Engineering Division .
736 -3Page 457 of 488
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 4
The interviews with the Council members were very enlightening and some common theme s
emerged . In broad terms, the concerns centered around a need to place a high priority on arteria l
and collector streets which carry higher numbers of vehicles, and possibly have a higher standar d
of maintenance compared to residential (local) streets . Complimentary to that, is a leanin g
toward a lesser standard for local streets, and possibly a longer rotation cycle . The basic questio n
is, of course, is the City spending its money wisely and with regard to overall priorities .
The other ancillary concerns expressed by Council members during the interviews were :
1.The term "Poor" as used by the pavement management program is not really poor and w e
are over doing the maintenance treatment .
2.Well maintained streets contribute to higher speeds .
3.Reducing road maintenance funds would free up funding for other things the City want s
to do, including alternative transportation, flood protection, roadway improvements suc h
as realignments, signalization, widening, or pedestrian improvements, and open spac e
acquisition .
4.The area rotation program does not prioritize streets citywide so streets in the current are a
get treatment before streets with greater need in other areas of the City .
5.Microsurfacing may be the appropriate treatment for maintaining a street, but it does no t
remove the bumps and provide a smooth ride .
6.Rough areas and trenches do not get a quick enough response .
7.Utility lines in pavement areas should get priority so that streets are not left without a
new surface for extended periods after their neighbors have been surfaced just because a
utility project is planned in the near future .
Some of these concerns are tied to the basic policy concern of priority, while others are staf f
operational issues . On a very positive note, during these discussions, neither Council membe r
remembered receiving complaints about street conditions in recent years .
Staff Intervie w
The Consultant also interviewed the staff person who completes regular analysis of the pavement
conditions and makes the initial recommendations for work . In general, field information o f
roadway conditions is collected every year . In the past this was done with student interns in th e
field and is considered the "manual" method . More recently, staff has hired a team capable of a
mobile review where photographs are taken and analyzed and pavement deflection is measured .
The mobile process can also evaluate the entire City, instead of a limited sample . The
information from the field review is entered into a computer program . Pavement maintenanc e
schemes are developed using primarily two pieces of information, 1) what is the availabl e
budget, and 2) what are the street pavement conditions .
The program evaluates the street condition for the current area as well as arterial and collector s
citywide . The arterials and collectors comprise approximately 30% of the street system . Using
initial recommendations in the PMP adopted by the Council 11 years ago, staff allocates 25% o f
the funding for arterial and collector streets and the remaining funding for repair and sealing o f
all other streets . The only exception to this was the two years where all funding went to arterial s
and collectors . After taking the available budget into consideration, the program recommends a
maintenance treatment, be it microsurfacing, overlays or complete reconstruction, for each street .
The program uses the basic philosophy that whole system pavement preservation is the goal .
Page 458 of 488
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 5
This list receives a further field review by the Street Supervisor to confirm the analysis . Mino r
adjustments are made at this point to correct any anomalies from the field review and to identif y
work that is better suited to the City's maintenance staff rather than contract construction .
Analysi s
After completing the review of the PMP and conducting the interviews, the Consultant prepare d
a general review of the program, summarized the comments heard and suggested som e
refinements to the program .
1.Arterial Streets
The Consultant recommended that the arterial streets receive attention first after a review of th e
network condition . This would change the current approach from that of a fixed percentage o f
funding to a fluctuating funding amount, depending upon the condition level set for the arteria l
streets . Funds available after addressing arterial streets would be used in the neighborhoo d
rotation areas . This is in line with the comments of both Council members . The consultant als o
indicates that funding levels have not kept up with the rising costs of asphalt . The City needs t o
make regular adjustments to the funding levels, and make sure it is maximizing the use o f
available grants . Based on the consultant's research, the City appears to fall in the middle rang e
of typical spending by cities of similar sizes.
2.Measurement of Street Quality
A broader policy concern raised by the Consultant is the issue of how staff measures the qualit y
of the streets and shows progress . Staff has been using the PCI since the original PMP to gaug e
the street condition, but the Consultant suggests looking at something that has more meaning to
the Council and the public, such as a reduction in the number of failed streets .
3.Data Calibration
Lastly, the Consultant suggests a new process to calibrate data received each year so tha t
comparisons of the PCI from year to year have greater consistency . This will require additiona l
staff hours .
Summary
The biggest issue for the program appears to be one of prioritizing where the money goes . The
increase over the last 10 years of nearly 10 points in the PCI for arterials and collectors whe n
compared to an overall network PCI holding steady, would indicate the 25% funding approach
was adequate to keep the arterials reasonably well maintained . However, at least two of th e
Council members do not perceive that the City has a quality arterial network, and the Consultant
indicates the prioritization of these streets is lower compared with how other agencies se t
priorities .
A secondary issue is that of providing a more meaningful term than "PCI" to demonstrate goal s
and progress to the community . In this year's Tribune's article on county street condition, th e
article used the terms "good" and "bad" to refer to street conditions . It reported 74% of the City's
streets in good condition and 2% in bad condition. These classifications are likely based on PCI ,
but are presented in lay terms for the public . The use of the PCI can assist staff and the softwar e
in prioritizing, but staff supports the idea of moving to a lay person translation of tha t
information for purposes of reporting and goal setting .
Page 459 of 488
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 6
Recommendation - Tiered System and Data Collection &Evaluation
Taking the Consultant's comments, and looking at these two key items together, staff
recommends that the condition goal for arterials be set higher than for local streets and that staf f
have greater leeway than the original 25% split, to assign funds to arterial roadways . Staff i s
recommending collectors be handled in the context of the pavement areas, but receive a highe r
priority for area funding than local streets . This would be combined with a more understandabl e
rating system. The following is an example of a tiered system the Council could endorse, usin g
simpler language and modified priorities . It should be noted that some of the downtown street s
are arterials and so would fall under the higher priority .
Priority Street Type Goal Annual or Area Rotatio n
1 st Priority Arterials Good >90%Bad =0%Citywide Annual Revie w
2nd Priority Downtown Good >80%Bad =0%Citywide Annual Revie w
3 `d Priority Collectors Good >80%Bad <5%Paving Area Revie w4thPriorityLocalGood >70%Bad <7%Paving Area Review
This set of priorities would then be the basis of funding requests during the Financial Pla n
process . As always, the level of funding is at Council's discretion . The funding request from staff
will include what the expected progress or lack of progress will be based on the various fundin g
levels .
The last element of the consultant's recommendation was in regards to better control of the data
collection . Staff is still evaluating the best approach to collecting field data . Each metho d
introduces human element to the evaluation . While the automated system appears to bump th e
PCI about 3 points over manual evaluation, the manual evaluation covers only a portion of th e
network and is carried out by interns . Intern staff are not necessarily the same people from yea r
to year, so consistency is not guaranteed through this process either . To balance the Consultant's
suggestion for improving consistency with other workload, the recommended approach is a n
increase in visual confirmation of arterial street condition, where concerns of condition are the
greatest, and rely on the automated system for the remainder of the network . In this way, staf f
will balance the need to verify field information with the need to deliver other constructio n
projects with the available staff .
FISCAL IMPAC T
Adjustments in the Pavement Management Plan do not in and of themselves have a fiscal impact .
The Council controls, through the Financial Plan process, the amount of funding that will b e
allocated to paving each year . However, it should be noted that decisions made regardin g
pavement maintenance can have long term affects . If for example, the City should decide to onl y
repair the worst streets, there would be consequences to the condition of the network in the lon g
term that could be costly to rectify . This has happened to other agencies . The approach needs to
be balanced and thoughtful to ensure to the largest degree possible that the City is spending it s
available paving dollars in a way that will be responsible in the long term . It is for this reaso n
that staff is not recommending significant changes, but rather modest changes to address wea k
areas in the current approach .
Page 460 of 488
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page7
Consistent Capital Improvement Program funding for street maintenance has allowed the City t o
keep maintenance staffing levels fairly constant in the face of growing street miles . The City
primarily uses general fund money for street maintenance, but augments this funding with Stat e
grants as they become available .
ALTERNATIVE S
1.Shift away from the area approach for local streets to a Citywide approach .City staff
strongly supports the area rotation concept . It has presented some challenges to the Utilit y
Department regarding priorities, but has reduced street cuts on newly paved streets . Engineerin g
staff remain in close communication with Utility staff to coordinate work . In the event there is an
urgent need for pipeline work, engineering makes every effort to shift priorities to accommodate
the need .
Sealing work needs to be performed on a regular basis to keep streets performing as intended .
The area rotation assists staff by regularly sending them back to the same area to keep it up . To
select seals locations on a citywide basis will create additional work and it will be much mor e
difficult to prioritize needs because of the number of streets that will have to be looked at .
2.Extend the rotation cycle .The apparent effect of extending the rotation cycle would be t o
reduce the funding level needed . In reality, the network needs a certain level of funding eac h
year to keep it maintained regardless of whether it is reviewed as a whole or in 8 or 12 areas .
Letting it fall into disrepair by prematurely reducing funding will lead to more costly
maintenance in the future, or a continual degradation in the quality of the City's streets .
Rotation cycles are largely tied to the lifespan of the sealing product . The goal is to reapply a
seal as the old one ceases to function . Staff has been using a newer product in the last couple o f
years that appears to last longer . Staff is not opposed to the extension of the cycle length, but
believes more information and time is needed on the newer product before making this change .
Staff will continue to monitor the performance of the material .
3.Make no changes to the current program .The program as originally envisioned an d
implemented has kept streets well maintained, reduced the number of poor streets in the City an d
improved the condition of the arterial and collector portion of the system . Staff could continu e
under this direction. Doing so would not address concerns that have been raised .
4.Complete an in-depth review and update of the PMP .If the Council does not feel that
minor adjustments are adequate to address the concerns about the pavement management
program, a more detailed review and update could be completed . This could be done by staff a t
some time in the future, or a specialist could be hired to complete the work . Staff expects tha t
such an effort (if completed by a consultant) would cost about $25,000 . If staff is asked to
complete the revision, then other CIP projects would likely have to be deferred .
ATTACHMENT S
1 . Pavement Area Map
86-'7-
Page 461 of 488
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 8
2.Margot Yapp Nichols Consulting Engineers — Consultant Resum e
3.Peer Review Report by Nichols Consulting Engineers
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E
1998 Pavement Management Pla n
t:\counal agenda reports\puouc works carrzu09\streets-signais'pmp remew\9u-O-ua pmp ru.,ea.;H..o
Page 462 of 488
ATTACHMENT #1
MAP OF CITY PAVEMENT AREAS
B (,t;-'-Page 463 of 488
ATTACHMENT 2
NI H S CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Ch td .
Masters in Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, 200 5
M .S . in Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, 198 7
B .S . in Civil & Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 198 5
Professional Registrations California, Orego n
Professional Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineer s
American Public Works Associatio n
Transportation Research Board Committees Al T50 (Asset Management )
TRB Subcommittee A2B01 (1) Local Agency Pavement Managemen t
Co-Chair, Pavement Preservation Technical Group on Pavement Managemen t
Strategic Highway Research Program II -Technical Coordinating Committee for Reliability
Summary Experienc e
Ms . Yapp has over 20 years of experience in the area of transportation engineering specializing i n
pavement design, asset/pavement management and research for roads, highways and airfields .
She has also implemented many Pavement Management Systems for cities, counties and airport s
in California, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas . She has taught workshops on pavemen t
management systems for the National Highway Institute/Federal Highway Administration . She i s
also involved in the evaluation and design of airfield pavements for civilian and military airports .
Ms. Yapp is currently the Project Manager for the California Statewide Needs Assessments
project where she is responsible for collecting all pavement and non-pavement data fro m
every county and city (536 agencies)in the entire state of California . She is also responsibl e
for developing a methodology to analyze the data, data analysis and determining the fundin g
shortfall required to maintain all of the city and county streets throughout California . Thes e
results will be used by the Legislature and the Governor in assessing future transportatio n
needs .
Ms . Yapp is also nationally recognized as an expert in assessing damage caused by utilit y
trenching in the public right-of-way . She has performed these studies for a number of agencie s
throughout the United States including Seattle, Philadelphia, Salem, Santa Clara County and Chico .
Representative Project s
Asset/Pavement Manaqement System s
NCE's proposed Project Manager, Ms . Yapp, has worked with pavement management software
since 1987 . She has worked with over 100 agencies in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii an d
Nevada to implement PMS, from condition surveys to setting up budget parameters to preparin g
final reports to making presentations to City Councils for cities (Mission Viejo, Tustin, Fullerton ,
Seal Beach, Torrance, Chula Vista, Vista, Corona, Highland, San Dimas, San Francisco, Sa n
Jose, Oakland, Fremont),counties (Orange, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Marin, Stanislaus ,
Margot T . Yapp, P .E .
Principal/Project Manage r
Education
"Bringing the State-of-the-Art to the Standard of Practice"D(—InPage 464 of 488
ATTACHMENT 2
Margot Yapp
Page 2 of 4
Mendocino, Lake, Mariposa and Monterey) and federal (US Forest Service, Presidio of Sa n
Francisco, Barbers Point NAS)agencies . She has Beninvolved in all aspects of PM S
implementation, from collecting field data, performing condition surve s, performing analyses ,preparing reports,preenn results to decision makers, and managing projects .Th types of PM Ssoftware include MTC's StmmSaeRU icoPAVER,dTIMS,Cartgraphan the Hansen Enterpris esystem.
Currently she works with both regional and local agencies to use their PMS data for developin g
work plans and also to project long-term needs for sales taxorbn measures . She has used PM S
data to develop performance prediction models, to monitor performance of projects constructed wit h
new pavement materials such as crumb rubber, and to develop new specifications . She recentl y
completed along-term rgion@pavement needs forid|3 cities in Orange County for the Orang e
County Transportation Authority .
Airfield Pavement Management
Ms . Yapp wa Project Manager for the implementation of a PMS at San Francisco Internationa l
Airport. The project involved all data collection activities, analyses and the preparation of budge t
reports and maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations . Both &rsidean landside pavement s
were included . Additionally, the project included the development of specific progra m
enhancements for the airport, including the use of CADD maps and a project-level pavemen t
analysis program that used mechanistic methods for overlay design as well as determination o fallowable loads using falling weight deflectometer testing .
Other airpor in|u e Ren -ah e|memaon |Ar o% J hn Wan |memaon |A mod Bame mPoint NAS,an 192 general aviaon airfields in the State of California . Omded data collection an d
data entry efforts, and asm«e in reedevelopment of maintenance and rehabilitation strategies an d
generated reports for individual airfields .
She provided week-long training sessions on the PMS to San Francisco International Airport ,
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Houston Intercontinental Airport staff .
Trainin g
Ms . Yapp wa the Principal Instructor for the Federal Highway Administration for a three-day cours e
on Pavement Management Systems .This course was taught to over 20 state highway agencies i n
the United States ; has also taught two-day workshops onpavement management systemsf r
local agencies and T2 Centers . These courses include the basic principles of a PMS as well a s
more advanced components . Elements of the course include inventory, condition assessments ,
budget needs, implementation, and presenting results to decision makers . She has also traine d
numerous local and federal agencies in the use and operations of PMS at both the technical an dnon-technical levels . She recently completed development of a1-a course for the FHWA entitle d
"Pavement Management – Characteristics of an Effective Program" (NHI Course 131116).
She has taught "Pavement Distress Identification"for the National Highway Institute . She was alsoapart-time »duerat San tJose State University where she teaches a graduate course in pavemen t
evaluation and design and pavement management systems . She currently presents courses o n
pavement performance and utility cuts as part of the University of Wisconsin's Department o f
Engineering Professional Educaon .
Bringing the State merle the Standard of Practice
Page 465 of 488
ATTACHMENT 2
Margot Yapp
Page 3 of 4
Pavement Desig n
Ms . Yapp has been involved in the pavement designs for runways, taxiways and aprons for airfield s
as well as roads and highways . Pavement designs typically include the use of nondestructive
testing devices such as the Dynaflect and Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD). Roadway design s
have been performed for local, state and federal agencies in New Mexico, California, Oregon ,
Washington and Alaska . Airfield experiences include the pavement designs at Barber's Point NAS ,
McCarran International Airport at Las Vegas, San Jose International Airport in California, Fresn o
ANG, and Castle AFB .
She is familiar with Caltrans, AASHTO and mechanistic design procedures, as well as those of th e
Asphalt Institute, the Federal Aviation Administration and the U .S . Corps of Engineers . Mechanisti c
designs have typically been employed in cases where non-standard vehicles, such as missil e
carriers, have loads that are unusually high or where unconventional subgrade base or surfac e
course materials are needed .
Sample projects include cities such as Los Gatos, Livermore, Hayward, Oakland and Campbell .
Selected Publications Report s
"Non-Pavement Needs Assessment", with Rita Leahy and Adriana Vargas, for the Metropolita n
Transportation Commission, September 2007 .
"Countywide Assessment of Existing & Future Pavement Needs", with LiQun Ke, for the Orang e
County Transportation Authority, 2006 .
"Development of Performance Measures for Allocation of Transportation Funds", for th e
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, February 2006 .
"Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement Performance of Seattle Streets", presented at the Roa d
Builder's Clinic, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, March 2000 .
"Development of Performance Prediction Models for Dry-No Freeze and Dry-Freeze Zones Usin g
LTPP Data", with Kevin Senn, D . Frith and L . Scofield,Proceedings,8th International Conferenc e
on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, WA, 1977 .
"Institutional Issues : What They Are, How to Work Around Them and Keep Going," submitted fo r
publication to the Third International Conference on Managing Pavements, San Antonio, Texas ,
1994, sponsored by the Transportation Research Board .
Review of Relationships between Modified Asphalt Properties and Pavement Performance,with
J .C . Coplantz and F .N . Finn, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1991 .
HP-GPC and Asphalt Characterization : Literature Review,with A .Z . Durrani and F .N . Finn, Strategi c
Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1990 .
Review of State and Industry Reports on Asphalt Properties and Relationship to Pavemen t
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
Page 466 of 488
ATTACHMENT 2
Margot Yap p
Page 4 of 4
Performance,with A .Z . Durrani and F .N . Finn, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington ,DC, 1990 .
Asphalt Properties & Relationship to Pavement Performance,with Fred N . Finn, J . Coplantz & A .
Durrani, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1990 .
The Effects of Emulsion Variability on Seal Coats - Final Report,with J .F . Shook & W .L . Shook ,FHWA-PA-89-30 and 89-12, Washington, DC, June 1990 .
"Existing Methods for the Structural Design of Aggregate Road Surfaces on Forest Roads", with J .Steward and W .G . Whitcomb, Fifth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads,Transportatio n
Research Record 1291 Vol . 2,Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1991 .
Aggregate Surfacing Design Guide,with W .G . Whitcomb, M . Myers, USFS Region 6, Portland ,Oregon, February 1990 .
"Development of an Improved Overlay Design Procedure for Alaska," with R .G . Hicks and B .Connor,Transportation Research Record 1207,Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC ,1988 .
Compendium of Demonstration Projects for USDA Forest Service Project on Alternate Surfacings -
Wood and Bark Chips in the Siuslaw National Forest, with R .G . Hicks,Transportation Research
Record 85-2,Transportation Research Institute, Oregon State University, July 1985 .
Potential Problems With the Use of Open-Graded Emulsified Asphalt Mixes, with R .S . Frey an dR.G . Hicks,Transportation Research Record 83-22,Transportation Research Institute, Orego n
State University, July 1983 .
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
Page 467 of 488
ATTACHMENT 3
NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Chtd .
Engineering and Environmental Service s
501 Canal Blvd ., Suite I • Point Richmond, CA 94804 .510 .215 .3620 • FAX 510 .215 .2898
September 14, 200 9
File : 156 .03 .2 0
Ms . Barbara Lync h
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Enginee r
Department of Public Work s
919 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Subject :
Peer Review of Pavement Management Plan &Summary of Interviews
with City Counci l
Dear Barbara :
As discussed, this letter report constitutes Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd . (NCE)'s pee r
review of the City's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) as well as the results of ou r
interviews with Council Member Andrew Carter, Mayor Dave Romero and the City's PM P
Manager, Daniel Van Beveren .
Review of Pavement Management Pla n
NCE first reviewed the City's "Pavement Management Plan" that was adopted by th e
Council in April 1998 . Generally, the PMP is well thought out, and incorporates the element s
that are expected of many pavement management plans . The City uses the MicroPAVE R
program, which is well-known and widely used by many cities and counties in the Unite d
States . It is also endorsed by the American Public Works Association as well as other federa l
agencies . Within California, some 80 cities or counties use the program .
More specifically, the PMP included :
•Thorough and detailed summary of pavements, their value, how the y
perform/deteriorate over time as well as the public's perceptions .
•A description of the MicroPAVER program, and the results of the analyses presente d
i .e . inventory data, pavement conditions, and future projections .
•Impacts of different treatment methods e .g . seals vs . overlays
•Impacts of different funding level s
•A summary of policy recommendations e .g . condition goals, design criteria ,
implementation and funding levels .
There was one specific observation that should be noted; the PMP identified arterials to hav e
the lowest average PCI in 1998 (59 for arterials, compared to 63 for collectors and 77 fo r
local streets). This is unusual since most cities actually have arterials and collectors in bette r
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
Page 468 of 488
ATTACHMENT 3
September 2, 2009
File # 156 .03 .20
Ms . Barbara Lynch
Page 2
condition than their local streets . The PMP also indicates that some streets in the City wil l
need to be maintained for reasons other than pavement condition i .e . identity, sense o f
community etc . However, from the funding recommendations in the report, only about 22 %
($500,000) of the annual funding is directed towards arterials specifically .
Most pavement preservation policies will aim to preserve good roads first as this is the mos t
cost-effective strategy in the long run . However, this is usually tempered by the fact tha t
arterials usually have a higher priority than local streets and are selected for treatment first .
Finally, change is a constant, and the PMP indicates that the results and recommendations ar e
based on assumptions that may change, and if so, those changes should be considered in th e
future .
Interview s
Three interviews were conducted in the morning of August 2 5 th, 2009 . The interviewees were
Mayor Dave Romero, Council Member Andrew Carter and the City's PMP Manager, Danie l
Van Beveren .
In general, the concerns from Council Member Carter are summarized as follows :
•Too much money is spent on local streets and not enough on arterials .
•The PCI is not the best performance measure of improvement . The perception is tha t
"we're spending a lot of money for not much improvement in the PCI "
•There are other higher priorities e .g . safety (signals, cross walks), traffic congestion ,
capacity improvements (primarily intersections )
•A modal shift in projects e .g . more pedestrian or bicycle projects
Mayor Romero's concerns are summarized as follows :
•Current emphasis in only on neighborhoods, and not on arterials . This should b e
corrected so that arterials have a higher priority . A secondary emphasis should be o n
collectors and bus/truck routes . The neighborhood program should be reduced in size .
•Smoothness is a priority, so overlays may be more appropriate than seals in area s
where there are roughness problems .
•More flexibility in the 8 year program to include other treatments as appropriate .
•Trench repairs are inadequate – better restoration practices should be considered .
Both are willing to "extend" the eight year cycle to longer cycles, if funding constraints exist .
PMP Manager Van Beveren's comments are summarized as follows :
•The 8 year program works – it's effective in coordinating with utilities and save s
money in construction
•Generally follow plan with 2/3 of budget going to local streets .
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
Page 469 of 488
ATTACHMENT 3
September 2, 200 9
File # 156 .03 .2 0
Ms . Barbara Lynch
Page 3
•Data collection – The City recently changed data collection methods (automate d
instead of walking surveys) and there appears to be significant jump in the PCI .
Currently, staff is working to calibrate the two methods before reporting the update d
PCI to Council .
•In the 2005-07 period, the CIP committee suspended the 8 year plan so lost ground .
•Have considered new treatments and materials over the past 10 years, some of whic h
have performed better than others .
•Construction costs are adjusted annually, but the funding is only adjusted by CP I
which has not kept up with construction .
•Future concerns include :
o More money is neede d
o Future cross slope issues will result in more money required fo r
reconstruction, and seals alone are insufficient .
o 8 year rotation is idealistic because there is not enough fundin g
o Sees PCI goal of 80 as a simplistic measure but not sure of other mor e
effective measures
o More time – when he began, his position devoted 60% of his time t o
pavement management ; today, his responsibilities have changed and he doe s
not have the time necessary to fulfill all the requirements, such as calibration .
Conclusions
First and foremost, a policy change to put a higher priority on arterials is justified an d
needed . This is the standard of practice for most cities . Currently, the PMP recommends a
funding level of $500,000 annually for arterials ; however, since the total funding is not th e
same every year, staff has typically ensured that the percentage of funding for arterials is th e
same .
NCE recommends that the City consider the entire network as a whole, and perform th e
budgetary analyses to determine the priorities . Due to changes in the past 10 years, it is
entirely possible that the priorities in 2009 may no longer be the same . For example, arterials
may require $1 million in 2010, but only $750,000 in 2011 . This analysis should b e
performed on the entire network, without regard to the eight neighborhoods, to determine th e
most optimal solution. Once the required funding for the arterials are determined, furthe r
analyses may be performed on the local streets in the eight neighborhoods .
While the PMP as laid out in 1998 was a good document, things have changed . One of th e
more drastic changes is the cost of construction . As an example, Caltrans Asphalt Price Inde x
shows more than a five-fold fold increase between 1997 and 2007, yet the City's fundin g
levels have not changed significantly . While price increases in the City may not be as drasti c
as the statewide averages, nonetheless, the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) may no t
the best use for projecting future funding needs . These adjustments have not been made to
the PMP over the last ten years . A detailed overview is needed, with the ability to mak e
changes annually or biennially, rather than once every 10 years .
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
Page 470 of 488
ATTACHMENT 3
September 2, 200 9
File # 156 .03 .20
Ms . Barbara Lynch
Page 4
The goal of a PCI of 80 for the City should be revisited to see if it still fits the Council's o r
public's priorities . It is also not unusual to have different goals for different classes of road s
i .e . most arterials are held to a higher standard than local streets . If City policy is to aim fo r
higher standards, then consequently higher funding levels are also required .
Other performance measures are needed to determine if progress is being made on the cit y
streets . The PCI is an insensitive measure at the network level ; other agencies have used
measures that resonate more with the public, such as reducing the percentage of failed streets .
As a general rule of thumb, most cities should not have more than 5% of their total networ k
area in the failed category . Again, different thresholds may be used for different functiona l
classes e .g . 0% for arterials, 5% for residentials etc .
Inclusion of a funding analysis should be included in future updates of the PMP . This should
consider different funding sources, and whether the City is maximizing its efforts in state an d
federal grants . In terms of funding levels, we examined a range of cities that are th e
approximately the size of San Luis Obispo i .e . with pavement networks ranging from 100 t o
135 centerline miles . This included cities such as Santa Cruz, Lompoc, South Lake Tahoe ,
Lawndale, Cerritos, Los Banos, Tustin, San Dimas, Eureka, Manhattan Beach, Desert Ho t
Springs and Lathrop . The funding levels for each of these cities came from a statewid e
survey performed by NCE in summer 2008 . The funding levels ranged from $500,000/yea r
to $4 .5 million/year. While funding levels depend on the condition of the network (i .e . good
streets cost less), nonetheless, this gives us a general range . San Luis Obispo, with fundin g
levels of approximately $2 .3 million/year, is the middle of this range .
Last but not least, a more formal QA program is needed to assure that the data collected i s
accurate . The informal QA program in place consists of an intern doing spot checks . Some
elements that should be in included in a revised QA program include a calibration procedur e
between the walking surveys and the new automated procedure, requiring the vendor t o
document their QC, ensuring adequate training for new city staff, spot checks that cover a
range of functional classes and pavement conditions .
Finally, it was a pleasure to be of assistance on this review . Please give me a call to discus s
when you get a chance . I look forward to hearing from you soon .
Sincerely ,
NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD .
Margot Yapp, P .E .
Vice President/Principal
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
Page 471 of 488
Page 472 of 488
PCI 2022 Street PCI
Excellent ≤100
Good ≤90
Fair ≤70
Poor ≤50
Failed ≤30
Bike Path PCI
Excellent ≤100
Good ≤90
Fair ≤70
Poor ≤50
Failed ≤30
Paving Zones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 473 of 488
Page 474 of 488
MADO
N
NA GRANDB
RO
A
D
SOUTH
S
A
N
T
A
RO
SA
SANTA BARBARAMONTE
R
E
Y
HIGUERAMARS
H
LAURELJ
O
H
N
S
ON
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
FOOTHILL
D
A
L
I
D
I
O OSOS
N
I
POMO
C
HORRO
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
TANK FARMHIGHLAND O
R
C
U
T
TSAN LU
IS
BUCKLEY
MADO
NN
A
MADON
N
A
Sewer
Water
*UTILITY PROJECTS FALL WITHIN THE 2-YEAR ROAD CUT
MORATORIUM FOR THE INDICATED YEAR OF AREA SEALING.
DELAY THESE STREETS 2 YEARS.
UTILITY PROJECT CONFLICTS*
AREA 6 (2022)
AREA 7 (2022)
AREA 9 (2022)
AREA 8 (2024)
AREA 1 (2024)
AREA 2 (2026)
AREA 3 (2026)
NEIGHBORHOOD BASE REPAIR
AND ROADWAY SEALING
1 HIGUERA (2021)
2 MARSH (2021)
3 JOHNSON/PHILLIPS/PEPPER (2021)
4 NIPOMO (2021)
5 MONTEREY/JOHNSON/GRAND (2023)
6 SANTA BARBARA (2023)
7 JOHNSON (2023)
8 HIGUERA/MADONNA (2023)
9 ORCUTT (2023)
10 TANK FARM (2025)
11 TANK FARM/ORCUTT (2025)
12 HIGUERA/PRADO (2027)
13 LOVR/FROOM/MADONNA (2027)
NO L EGENDARTERIAL ROADWAY
BASE REPAIR AND SEALING
1,2
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
F
O
R
F
O
R
C
A
L
I
3
4
5
6
J
O
J
O
H
O
H
N
S
O
H
H
N
S
O
S
O
S
ON
ON
J
O
J
O
H
H
N
N
S
O
S
O
S
ONN7
NAANAONNA
DONDON
MADOMADMAMA ANANNA
DONON
MADOMADMA
NANA
8
9
10 MARM
11
12
L
O
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
LL
E
LL
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
LEE
LL
E
LLLE
LLLE
YY
L
O
S
S
O
S
LE
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
ELELE
Y
L13
Page 475 of 488
Page 476 of 488
Appendix F Page | 1
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Developing maintenance strategies for and agency’s pavement can extend the life of
these surfaces by several years by slowing the pavement aging process. Maintenance
procedures protect pavement from the adverse effects of water and to some extent
vehicle traffic.
Maintenance strategies that protect pavement and impede aging include crack sealing,
slurry seals, digouts (patch paving) and cape seals. As with all maintenance procedures,
there are tradeoffs between appearance, effectiveness and cost, but correcting surface
layer problems promptly, before the pavement degrades significantly, is the key to long-
lasting pavement.
Crack Sealing
Crack sealing is the first line of defense against
premature pavement aging because it prevents
surface water from getting beneath the asphalt
concrete layer into the aggregate bases where
structural damage occurs. This procedure
involves routing small cracks, cleaning and
sealing with a hot, flexible rubberized material
that bonds to the crack and moves with the
pavement. Cracking sealing can be applied
with or without other procedures to maximize
pavement life.
Slurry Seals
A slurry seal is an emulsion of oil and aggregate, but it has a much higher concentration
of aggregate than a seal coat and is more durable. In addition to filling in cracks and
depressions and creating a uniform, dense mat, it provides a weather-tight surface with
improved skid resistance that is effective in
high traffic areas. A typical slurry seal lasts
between three and five years.
There are three types of slurry seals depending
on the coarseness of the largest aggregate.
Type I slurry seal has aggregates less than 1/8
of an inch, Type II has aggregates less than 1/4
of an inch, and Type III has aggregates less
than 5/16 of an inch. The most commonly used
slurry seals for residential streets are Type I or
Type II.
Page 477 of 488
Appendix F Page | 2
Digouts
Digouts are small areas of deteriorated pavement that are removed by cold planning or
cutting with a special saw and replaced with new asphalt concrete that is installed in at
least two lifts (two layers). The digout depth depends on the street type and construction.
Cape Seals
Cape seals are used on residential and
collector streets to maintain pavement that
may need a more expensive overlay when
sufficient funds are not available.
Cape seals consist of a chip seal
overcoated with a slurry seal. The chip
seal consists of small angular rock (chips)
approximately 1/4 inch to 3/8 inch
maximum size that are embedded into a
thick application of asphalt emulsion. Most
chip seals incorporate polymer-modified
binders and are placed over low to
moderate alligator cracks and block
cracks. Depending on the type distress or
defect covered by the chip seal, small
areas of disbanding or failure may occur
that will require patching.
Because cape sealed surfaces are fairly coarse when compared to new paving, they may
not be acceptable to some Agencies.
INTERIM PAVEMENT HOLDING PROCEDURES
When pavements have extensive cracking and are beyond their design life, interim
holding measures, including skin patches and thin overlays, are used as a stop gap
prior to major rehabilitation. Skin patches are thin lifts of fine asphalt concrete placed over
deteriorated areas. Thin overlays consist of an asphalt concrete layer with 3/8-inch
aggregate that generally is 3/4 to 1-inch-thick.
Page 478 of 488
Appendix F Page | 3
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROCEDURES
For asphalt pavement that has reached the end of its service life, there several options
that can restore existing pavement quality or add additional structure support. Some of
the more common rehabilitation procedures include conventional overlays;
pulverization and resurfacing; asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) overlays; mill and fill
(removal and replacement); and reconstruction.
Conventional Overlays
Conventional overlays generally consist of
surface preparation, such as crack filling, base
repairs and leveling courses, varying
thicknesses of asphalt concrete and
pavement fabric.
Pavement fabric can be used both as a water
inhibiting membrane and to retard reflective
cracking; however, it is not acceptable at
intersections with heavy truck breaking, on
steep grades (generally over 8 percent) and in
areas where subsurface water might be trapped.
Asphalt concrete thickness is established by the structural requirement obtained through
a deflection analysis (see pavement investigations section) and reflective cracking
criteria. Reflective cracking criteria require the thickness of the overlay to be a minimum
of half the thickness of the existing bonded layers. Pavement fabric can account for 0.10
ft of the reflective cracking criteria if the structural requirements from the deflection
analysis are met.
If well constructed and designed to meet structural and reflection cracking criteria,
conventional overlays have an expected service life of between 7 and 13 years.
Pulverization and Resurfacing
Pulverization and resurfacing is an
intermediate step between overlays and
reconstruction. The procedure involves
regarding the surface flush with facilities,
such as ramps, curbs and gutters, and
recycling the existing concrete into an
aggregate base to increase the pavement
structure. This method strengthens the
existing base, improves a road’s cross
section and profile and eliminates the stress
Page 479 of 488
Appendix F Page | 4
history and cracking of the old asphalt concrete pavement. This rehabilitation procedure
also eliminates bumps, humps and rutting
Pulverization and resurfacing has a life expectancy of between 13 and 18 years. The life
expectancy is slightly less than full reconstruction because some residual deficiencies in
thickness or quality of the unaffected layers may still exist. Testing is necessary to
determine if pulverization is a viable alternative (see pavement investigation section). This
testing includes measuring the existing structural section and testing the native soil for
bearing capacity (R-value).
RHMA Overlays
RHMA is the short for rubberized hot mix asphalt. This mix combines crumb rubber with
traditional asphalt binders to produce a more flexible paving material than conventional
dense graded hot mix asphalt (HMA). Caltrans has developed design criteria for using
this material based on accelerated performance testing. Basically, 1 inch of RHMA is
equal to 2 inches of HMA and is applicable for both structural and reflective cracking.
RHMA costs approximately 1.75 times as much as conventional asphalt and provides a
similar service life to that of conventional hot mix asphalt, or 7 to 13 years.
RHMA does come with limitations. Generally, it is used only when vertical constraints
such as curb and gutter restrict the thickness of an overlay. RHMA also has more open
surface than conventional hot mix asphalt and is more difficult to obtain a high quality
finished product.
Mill and Fill (Asphalt Concrete Removal and Replacement)
On some thick asphalt concrete
pavements, the most economical
rehabilitation approach is to remove some
of the existing asphalt concrete surface.
The replacement material can be either
conventional HMA or RHMA, depending
on the design criteria. If the underlying
base is sufficient to support anticipated
loading, the asphalt layer can be removed
and replaced. In some cases, due to
drainage or other physical constraints,
additional asphalt concrete cannot be
placed.
This procedure extends pavement life and creates a smooth ride by eliminating the effects
of tire ruts and any asphalt movement that occurred over the years. Depending on existing
conditions, this procedure has life of between 15 and 20 years.
Page 480 of 488
Appendix F Page | 5
Reconstruction
When pavement has severe cross-section
deficiencies or requires significant structural
strengthening, reconstruction may be the only
alternative. Generally, existing pavement materials
are recycled and incorporated into the new
pavement structure. Structural section material
alternatives include treated soils, full depth asphalt
concrete, recycled materials and Portland cement
concrete.
Page 481 of 488
Page 482 of 488
6/22/2022
1
STUDY SESSION
Pavement Management Program
2022 Update
June 21, 2022
1
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation from City Staff and
Pavement Engineering Inc. on the City’s Pavement
Management Plan.
2
1
2
6/22/2022
2
ASSET OVERVIEW
135 CENTERLINE MILES OF ROADWAYS
27.8 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF ROADWAY
SURFACING
REPLACEMENT COST = $700 MILLION
3
PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
Evaluating Pavement: the PCI
100 – 91 = Excellent
90 – 70 = Good
69 – 51 = Fair/ At Risk
50 – 31 = Poor
30 – 0 = Failed
Developed by the U. S. Army Corp of
Engineers during World War II and
standardized by ASTM, the PCI is an
objective and rational basis for determining
pavement condition and establishing
maintenance priorities.
4
3
4
6/22/2022
3
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
•Divided the City into 9 distinct paving
zones.
•Adopted a policy to maintaining pavement
at Pavement Condition Index of 80.
1998
PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
2009
PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
5
PAVEMENT CONDITION
6
5
6
6/22/2022
4
PRESENTATION GOALS
Pavement 101
Pavement management principles
7
PAVEMENT 101
What Determines a Pavement Section?
8
7
8
6/22/2022
5
PAVEMENT 101
Pavement Deterioration Cycle
9
PAVEMENT 101
Asphalt concrete deteriorates in two ways:
Pavement Deterioration
Oxidizing effects of
sun and water
Fatigue from heavy
wheel loads
10
9
10
6/22/2022
6
PAVEMENT 101
The Impact of Sun and Water
11
PAVEMENT 101
The Impact of Heavy Loads
12
11
12
6/22/2022
7
PAVEMENT 101
Block
Cracking
Alligator
Cracking
Transverse or
Longitudinal
Cracking
Weathering or
Raveling
Common Pavement Distresses
13
PAVEMENT 101
PCI = 100 PCI = 28
14
13
14
6/22/2022
8
PAVEMENT 101
PCI = ?
15
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Applying the RIGHT TREATMENT
to the RIGHT PAVEMENT
at the RIGHT TIME
using the RIGHT MATERIALS
16
15
16
6/22/2022
9
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Pavement Preservation Timing
17
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
18
17
18
6/22/2022
10
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Pavement Management Strategies
• Best-First “Top Down” Management
• Worst-First “Bottom Up” Management
• Critical-Point Management
19
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Pavement Management Strategies
Critical Point Management
Critical-Point-Management
selects streets before they
deteriorate and need the
next most expensive
treatment.
20
19
20
6/22/2022
11
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Pavement Condition vs.
Maintenance / Rehabilitation Cost
PCI
Range
Treatment
Category
Cost Range
(per SF)
90-71 Light
Maintenance
$0.78 to
$1.33
70-51 Heavy
Maintenace ~$4.56
70-51 Light
Rehabilitation ~$6.44
50-26 Heavy
Rehabilitation ~$12.67
25-0 Reconstruction $18.67 to
$30.44
21
SUSTAINABLE PAVING STRATEGIES
22
21
22
6/22/2022
12
STREET MAINTENANCE
23
REPORTING POTHOLES
Email streetmaint@slocity.org
City Website search:https://www.slocity.org/how-do-i/report
Calling the City Corporation Yard line 805-781-7220 or
the Public Works Administrative line 805-781-7200
24
23
24
6/22/2022
13
CITY STREET’S CREW
25
2021-27 PAVEMENT PLAN
2022 -Area 6, 7 & 9
2023 -Monterey, Johnson, Grand,
Santa Barbara, Higuera, Madonna,
Orcutt
2024 –Area 1 & 8
2025 –Tank Farm, Orcutt
2026 –Area 2 & 3
2027 – Higuera, Prado, LOVR,
Froom, Madonna
26
25
26
6/22/2022
14
CONSTRUCTION COST
27
COMPLETE STREET ELEMENTS
28
27
28
6/22/2022
15
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation from City Staff and
Pavement Engineering Inc. on the City’s Pavement
Management Plan.
29
Questions/Comments
30
29
30